How would Old Glory look with 30 stars instead of 50? As far-fetched as it may sound, the White House might soon be forced by its own rules to examine the question.
On Nov.7, the day after President Barack Obama was re-elected, the White House’s website received a petition asking the administration to allow Louisiana to secede.
If 25,000 people sign the petition by Dec. 7, it will “require a response” from the Obama administration, according to published rules of the White House’s online “We the People” program. (RELATED: Website petition to Obama: Please create “Do Not Kill” list)
The Louisiana petition has collected more than 12,300 signatures in four days. A separate effort from Texas has 15,400 supporters.
Similar petitions from 18 other states began arriving Nov. 9, bringing the total — for the moment — to 20.
The White House website publicly displays petitions that have attracted at least 150 signers. (RELATED: Obama petition initiative bashed as unethical campaigning with taxpayer resources)
“Michael E” from the New Orleans suburb of Slidell penned the initial proposal — the website doesn’t provide last names — in which he asked the Obama administration to “[p]eacefully grant the State of Louisiana to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own NEW government.”
His entire petition consisted of excerpts from the Declaration of Independence.
“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” one portion read, “that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and institute new Government.”
“Micah H” from Arlington, Texas submitted the petition on behalf of the Lone Star State.
“The US continues to suffer economic difficulties stemming from the federal government’s neglect to reform domestic and foreign spending,” he wrote.
Texas, he added, “maintains a balanced budget and is the 15th largest economy in the world,” making it “practically feasible for Texas to withdraw from the union.”
What began as a pair of parallel stunts appears to have gathered steam. Other than Louisiana and Texas, states with secession-related petitions pending on the White House website now include Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina and Tennessee.
Three states — Georgia, Missouri and South Carolina are each represented by two competing petitions.
While most of the petitions mimic the Louisiana effort’s tribute to the Declaration of Independence, Montana’s and Florida’s focus on the same quoted line from Benjamin Franklin: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
And a few abandon the Founding Fathers entirely, going off instead on their own less poetic tangents.
“The Federal Government has imposed policies on Oregon that are not in Oregon’s best intrests [sic],” reads one submitted by “Kristopher W” of Tillamook, Oregon. ”[A]nd we as citizens would respectively and peacably [sic] seperate [sic] ourselves from a tyranical [sic] Government who cares nothing about creating a sustainable future for our children.”
“just like in 1860,” reads one of the two petitions submitted on behalf of the citizens of Georgia, “the south secede [sic] from the union.”
“kyle. r” from Cornelia, Georgia added only that in “2012 the state of georgia [sic] would like to withdraw from the USA.”
“Jason B” from Harrowgate, Tennessee volunteered only a few words to describe his request for a license to secede. “Helping the people of Tennessee,” he wrote. And nothing more.
The petitions that followed those from Louisiana and Texas have attracted between 300 and 4,000. Their chances to land on a White House staffer’s desk, probably for a polite guffaw, will expire between Dec. 9 and Dec. 11.
The White House did not respond to emails seeking comment.
Some people really need to realize that if they want their written communications to be given any credit at all, proper spelling and grammar is mandatory, and even if they're positive it's all correct, it needs to be double checked.
So if they secede from the US they become their own countries right? So Texas should be fine, probably take some of Mexico eventually to sustain itself; but Louisiana I somewhat doubt has the resources to keep itself going.
More of less seceding just worsens it for them as they'll have to rely on trade with the US in order to not collapse and fold back into it. But, Obama be the devil, better dead than red etc I guess.
In other tinfoil hat news, the crazy guy on the corner screaming about how the end times are here continues to scream. More on this breaking story at 5.
nomsheep wrote: No war, since the tiny minority of tinfoil hat secessionists will be arrested by the local police and the rest of the world will only hear about it on one of those "criminals are really stupid" shows.
Thank god for cali, I wouldnt be affected at all if a war happened.
Also, What do these countries plan to do if they get invaded?
Im pretty sure part of the divorce papers is that we get the military.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Thank god for cali, I wouldnt be affected at all if a war happened.
Also, What do these countries plan to do if they get invaded?
Im pretty sure part of the divorce papers is that we get the military.
pretty sure they'll make their own. and how many people in the military atm would fight against their own states and families. ?
AduroT wrote: I love it when losing republicans complain they're moving to X Other Country That's More Socialist/Liberal Than Us whenever the dems win an election.
It's not just Republican...
It's whenever "their guy" loses.
I remember Susan Sarandon wanted to move if Bush got elected...
AduroT wrote: I love it when losing republicans complain they're moving to X Other Country That's More Socialist/Liberal Than Us whenever the dems win an election.
It's not just Republican...
It's whenever "their guy" loses.
I remember Susan Sarandon wanted to move if Bush got elected...
It's a sentiment that never fails to annoy me, regardless of who expresses it.
EDIT:
Peoples reactions along with a quick jog over to wikipedia has made me realise that I used the term expat wrongly and in a way that could cause offense. This was not my intent at all.
I have a lot of respect for people who move to another country. People with the gumption and follow-through to actually do it and leave the fields that they know usually have a kind of courage and will that most people lack. People who've lived in a different country and society, especially with another primary language, IME usually gain a better perspective on society and humanity than those of us who just stay in one.
People who make ignorant and hollow comments about moving, of course, are worthy of disdain.
Mannahnin wrote: I have a lot of respect for people who move to another country. People with the gumption and follow-through to actually do it and leave the fields that they know usually have a kind of courage and will that most people lack. People who've lived in a different country and society, especially with another primary language, IME usually gain a better perspective on society and humanity than those of us who just stay in one.
People who make ignorant and hollow comments about moving, of course, are worthy of disdain.
I think I might technically qualify as an expat.
I always had dual-citizenship, but I lived in Germany until I was 16 and then moved to the USA.
Not sure if the age and/or citizenship status cancels out expat status...
Mannahnin wrote: I have a lot of respect for people who move to another country. People with the gumption and follow-through to actually do it and leave the fields that they know usually have a kind of courage and will that most people lack. People who've lived in a different country and society, especially with another primary language, IME usually gain a better perspective on society and humanity than those of us who just stay in one.
People who make ignorant and hollow comments about moving, of course, are worthy of disdain.
I think I might technically qualify as an expat.
I always had dual-citizenship, but I lived in Germany until I was 16 and then moved to the USA.
Not sure if the age and/or citizenship status cancels out expat status...
there was actually a thread on the possibility of a civil war not so long back.
It's not that easy to move to the u.s. I've looked into repeatedly and apparently need work permits, skills or relatives there. I have none of these things.
American Civil War 2, directed by Michael Bay: When secession threatens the nation, what will President Obama, portrayed by Megan Fox, do? Come see all the action (and presidential bewbs) at a theater near you!
there was actually a thread on the possibility of a civil war not so long back.
It's not that easy to move to the u.s. I've looked into repeatedly and apparently need work permits, skills or relatives there. I have none of these things.
My wife's parents are now prepping because of this petition nonsense.
We are not, well you know more. War is like the weather, you can feel it coming in your bones.
I don't think we are on the precipice.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Thank god for cali, I wouldnt be affected at all if a war happened.
Also, What do these countries plan to do if they get invaded?
Im pretty sure part of the divorce papers is that we get the military.
pretty sure they'll make their own. and how many people in the military atm would fight against their own states and families. ?
Well given what happened last time, approximately NONE of the standing U.S. military would engage in combat operations against their home states. Which gives those home states a ready military force to fold in to their national guard units.
Mind you, that had more to do with states essentially providing their own militaries at that point. As the modern military does a rather nice job of mixing soldiers from various homestates into units, looking at the US civil war for an idea of what might happen isn't a particularly good place to start.
Laughing Man wrote: Mind you, that had more to do with states essentially providing their own militaries at that point. As the modern military does a rather nice job of mixing soldiers from various homestates into units, looking at the US civil war for an idea of what might happen isn't a particularly good place to start.
Especially since the secessionist "movement" hasn't gone beyond the level of a few tinfoil hatters ranting and {censored}ing to gun magazines. Even if for some reason the local police don't deal with any attempt at a "revolution" (IOW, some crazy guy shoots up the county courthouse before shooting himself as the police close in) there's no way it's going to be anything even close to the level for sympathy for a soldier's home state to have any impact. If anything that sympathy might make them even more strongly against the secessionists, since they'd be causing harm to the soldier's home.
Well given what happened last time, approximately NONE of the standing U.S. military would engage in combat operations against their home states. Which gives those home states a ready military force to fold in to their national guard units.
Which from what I understand would put the North at a severe disadvantage, as iirc, the majority of the military is made up of southerners.
Well given what happened last time, approximately NONE of the standing U.S. military would engage in combat operations against their home states. Which gives those home states a ready military force to fold in to their national guard units.
Which from what I understand would put the North at a severe disadvantage, as iirc, the majority of the military is made up of southerners.
That's an extremely faulty assumption. Given the current culture, where loyalty to a state has become nearly non-existant, just because someone comes from a state doesn't mean they'd support its succession.
And we're jumping ahead anyway. How many people live in Louisiana? 12,000 is not a significant number by any definition.
And no. A lot of the military comes from the South but it's no where near a majority.
nomsheep wrote: If it comes to secession, it will most likely be bloodless
Yeah. Cause the federal government is just going to let vital ports and economic interests go because its the nice thing to do.
Recognizing that succession is first of a horribly improbably outcome of events, we also need to recognize we have no valid basis for any given assumptions about how such a conflict would turn out. The variable are incalculable and just about any given suggestion is inherently flawed in some way.
A better question: Why do some people seemingly want there to be another Civil War? That's a puzzler.
Never going to happen. And moving to another country while Bush was president is a legitimate reason to move to another country. It's pretty much widely accepted that Bush made a mockery of the Republic and that Cheney embodied everything it is to have a madman in power. If anyone in the history of the United States comes close to a egotistical sadist mass murder who'd trade American Blood for Oil - it's him. Though, nobody ever seems to talk about how Lincoln committed genocide on some of the last remaining Sioux either.... so I guess nobody's perfect.
Gitkikka wrote: "A separate effort from Texas has 15,400 supporters. "
That can't be right.
There are a loooot more stupid people in this state than that.
Hell, Dallas alone has a couple million, at least.
Its up to 40,000 for Texas actually. The Houston Chronicle's article have lots of calls of "traitor." In the words of the immortant bard: Death to traitors!
Gitkikka wrote: "A separate effort from Texas has 15,400 supporters. "
That can't be right.
There are a loooot more stupid people in this state than that.
Hell, Dallas alone has a couple million, at least.
Its up to 40,000 for Texas actually. The Houston Chronicle's article have lots of calls of "traitor." In the words of the immortant bard: Death to traitors!
It's interesting when you look at how much federal money some states get, and realize that many of the "federal government is evil" red states get more money back than they pay.
d-usa wrote: It's interesting when you look at how much federal money some states get, and realize that many of the "federal government is evil" red states get more money back than they pay.
Its a false argument. All the states get back more than they pay. Thats the issue. We're running a $1.1 TRILLION annual deficit. Anything else is just a pack of nonsensical statements.
d-usa wrote: It's interesting when you look at how much federal money some states get, and realize that many of the "federal government is evil" red states get more money back than they pay.
Its a false argument. All the states get back more than they pay.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Ok, Lets say, for sake of argument, that the petitions do get enough signatures? Then what happens?
Absolutely nothing, its a petition not a binding document. The State legislatures would have to pass something or a referendum would have to be held for actual secession. Which again leads to absolutely nothing.
d-usa wrote: It's interesting when you look at how much federal money some states get, and realize that many of the "federal government is evil" red states get more money back than they pay.
Its a false argument. All the states get back more than they pay.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Ok, Lets say, for sake of argument, that the petitions do get enough signatures? Then what happens?
Absolutely nothing, its a petition not a binding document. The State legislatures would have to pass something or a referendum would have to be held for actual secession. Which again leads to absolutely nothing.
I bet all of the sudden lots of foreign bases are closed as part of the budget and those troops brought back though.
I am old school and would fight for my State first - Country second, but thats just me.
Every election this comes up though. Most of the time it doesn't make the news, but since this is all obviously a 'race thing' it is making the news this year it seems. I might have missed it in the past, but I do not remember ever seeing New York or New Jersey on the secession list before. That to me is more odd than seeing Southern States on the list.
Well, Frazz, if Texas does secede, it has my vote. With the changes that would likely take place, it would be the return of, quite possibly, the second most epic nation on Earth.
I'd move there with some armor and see if I can join the Texas boarder patrol. I'd like to see how those drug cartel tanks stand up to real armor.
For as long as I can remember, there is talk of civil war every time a democrat parks his ass in the white house.
Louisiana is interesting though, as the original treaty might be illegal (read it somewhere) and France could have a legit claim to getting it back. Maybe the United Nations will invade to sort it out
I think Mississippi should secede, just because its so &)(^ing hard to type "Mississippi" correctly. I'd like New Mexico to secede, and then we can dare Old Mexico to take it back.
I think New York and New Jersey should declare war on each other and go at it in the streets with giant boxing gloves, whippy sticks, and the occasional shoe.
Frazzled wrote: I think Mississippi should secede, just because its so &)(^ing hard to type "Mississippi" correctly. I'd like New Mexico to secede, and then we can dare Old Mexico to take it back.
I think New York and New Jersey should declare war on each other and go at it in the streets with giant boxing gloves, whippy sticks, and the occasional shoe.
I'm told that the Western half of New York will gladly embrace anything that gets the US to either make them their own state or give them to PA. Taxes are a bitch.
And according to the newspapers (though I can't source atm) preparing to move in to Syria.
Really? All the jibber jabber I've been getting is that they're going to let it play out by itself, or only provide clandestine help. Something about debts and LIbya and Iraq and other things of that nature.
And according to the newspapers (though I can't source atm) preparing to move in to Syria.
Really? All the jibber jabber I've been getting is that they're going to let it play out by itself, or only provide clandestine help. Something about debts and LIbya and Iraq and other things of that nature.
Something to do with (military related) humanitarian relief efforts should the war take large amounts of civilian life, I believe yet despite searching the site I cannot find this bloody article.
Not sure if this is real, but Justice Scalia wiegh'ed in on this:
I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, “one Nation, indivisible.”) Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit.
I am sure that poetic license can overcome all that — but you do not need legal advice for that. Good luck with your screenplay.
I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, “one Nation, indivisible.”) Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit.
I am sure that poetic license can overcome all that — but you do not need legal advice for that. Good luck with your screenplay.
Sounds like Scalia to me, he's got quite the distinct writing style when issuing legal judgements or dissenting statements.
How exactly is Justice Scalia using the Pledge of Allegiance in a legal argument. I get that this isn't exactly a real argument but still. Also the Civil War isnt a great place to point to and say "we settled that" for a SCOTUS justice, since it took gaking all over the Constiution for four years to "settle" it.
My 2c.
AustonT wrote: How exactly is Justice Scalia using the Pledge of Allegiance in a legal argument. I get that this isn't exactly a real argument but still. Also the Civil War isnt a great place to point to and say "we settled that" for a SCOTUS justice, since it took gaking all over the Constiution for four years to "settle" it.
My 2c.
I hate NY taxes. They're disgusting. That said, other than the dark times (Bush's reign), I've been proud to call myself an American. I wouldn't want to secede. However, I did want to move to another country when Bush was in office, and would be embarrassed to go to another country and admit to being American. He put us in such a bad state with the rest of the world, we couldn't show our faces. Does the rest of the world hate us with Obama in office? Not that I've heard. We're tolerated/liked again, so why do all these nutjobs want to secede?
Then elect Jeb Bush so we can invade Texas for their oil.
Bring it Yankee Dog! Our manly Wimminz will make choccolate cakes whilst we smote thee from the high places! EDIT: The Wife's attempt at making a Tardis Cake for Genghis Connie-Success! And Tasty!
Mexico (war for independence) Mexico II (Mex American War) DamnYankees (War of Northern Aggression) Pancho Villa (Mexico III?) Yankees (destruction of the Rust Belt)
It's weird that there's no right to secede. It seems to take away some credibility from the notion that the United States are an actual Union of States... ?
Kovnik Obama wrote: It's weird that there's no right to secede. It seems to take away some credibility from the notion that the United States are an actual Union of States... ?
What confidence can there be in a system that will collapse the moment one of its members decides it doesn't like the other 49? Seccession defeats the purpose of forming a union at all. For better or worse its all in.
Kovnik Obama wrote: It's weird that there's no right to secede. It seems to take away some credibility from the notion that the United States are an actual Union of States... ?
Do Scotland and Whales have the right of secession?
Kovnik Obama wrote: It's weird that there's no right to secede. It seems to take away some credibility from the notion that the United States are an actual Union of States... ?
Do Scotland and Whales have the right of secession?
Dang... I knew someone would bring this up.
And for those across the pond. This will never, ever happen.
hotsauceman1 wrote: And if it does how many of those states can form a credible economy? except texans of course.
Hypothecally speaking?
Most of these states are countries outright based on their GDP/local industries. In fact, all of them technically are separate countries... in the form of statehood.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: If states have a right to secede, then the rest of the states should have the right to kick individual states out as well.
Who'd you wanna kick out?
I love CA, NY and Illinios (well... I have love-hate with Illinois that I despise the Chicago teams besides the Bears).
Kovnik Obama wrote: It's weird that there's no right to secede. It seems to take away some credibility from the notion that the United States are an actual Union of States... ?
What confidence can there be in a system that will collapse the moment one of its members decides it doesn't like the other 49? Seccession defeats the purpose of forming a union at all. For better or worse its all in.
A State should, to remain a State, have the minimum power to recall the power it has deleguated.
Kovnik Obama wrote: It's weird that there's no right to secede. It seems to take away some credibility from the notion that the United States are an actual Union of States... ?
Do Scotland and Whales have the right of secession?
I don't know for Scotland, but Quebec does, and Canadian and British Constitutional Law are very close. It's just that the whole process is tedious... you can argue 15 years wether or not the question asked on the ballot is clear enough to validate the independance...
Kovnik Obama wrote: It's weird that there's no right to secede. It seems to take away some credibility from the notion that the United States are an actual Union of States... ?
Article X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
However, the Supreme Court rarely enforces this Amendment:
"The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers." - US V Darby
Several states, including Texas, has introduced laws in their Legislature against any further 'expansive' rulings on the issue, as Congress frequently uses the Commerce Clause to write pretty much whatever laws they like, as everything effects interstate commerce at some point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: And if it does how many of those states can form a credible economy? except texans of course.
Kovnik Obama wrote: It's weird that there's no right to secede. It seems to take away some credibility from the notion that the United States are an actual Union of States... ?
Article X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
However, the Supreme Court rarely enforces this Amendment:
"The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers." - US V Darby
Several states, including Texas, has introduced laws in their Legislature against any further 'expansive' rulings on the issue, as Congress frequently uses the Commerce Clause to write pretty much whatever laws they like, as everything effects interstate commerce at some point.
Speaking of the Commerce Clause...
No one really brings this up.
But, Justice Roberts ruled that the ACA bill can be imposed due to Congress' ability to levy tax.... NOT by virtue to the Commerce Clause. That's a really ground shaking revelation among constitutional scholars. We now have a limit on the Commerce Clause.
Kovnik Obama wrote: It's weird that there's no right to secede. It seems to take away some credibility from the notion that the United States are an actual Union of States... ?
Article X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Up here it's the contrary, the Fed acquires automatically all competencies that did not previously exists. Major source of Provincial vs. Federal drama.
But, Justice Roberts ruled that the ACA bill can be imposed due to Congress' ability to levy tax.... NOT by virtue to the Commerce Clause. That's a really ground shaking revelation among constitutional scholars. We now have a limit on the Commerce Clause.
I didn't really find that too revelatory: States have been using the dodge of calling them 'fees' for years in order to claim they did not raise taxes, but every time it goes before the court, they call it a tax.
But, Justice Roberts ruled that the ACA bill can be imposed due to Congress' ability to levy tax.... NOT by virtue to the Commerce Clause. That's a really ground shaking revelation among constitutional scholars. We now have a limit on the Commerce Clause.
I didn't really find that too revelatory: States have been using the dodge of calling them 'fees' for years in order to claim they did not raise taxes, but every time it goes before the court, they call it a tax.
That's different... that's the state doing that. I'm talking about the US Congress... it was the first time the SC in recent memory that changed a bill's statutory permission, which was empowered by the Commerce Clause. Roberts ripped that out and called it a tax.
Still... A State is a sovereign entity, it must retain a certain semblance of freedom. Otherwise you are just a creature of the higher ladders, like our municipalities that only exists according to the whim of the Provinces.
(there used to be a big fuss in Quebec city when we attempted to merge all the towns, people didn't realize that towns and cities do not have any right regarding their existence)
Kovnik Obama wrote: It's weird that there's no right to secede. It seems to take away some credibility from the notion that the United States are an actual Union of States... ?
Do Scotland and Whales have the right of secession?
Kovnik Obama wrote: It's weird that there's no right to secede. It seems to take away some credibility from the notion that the United States are an actual Union of States... ?
Do Scotland and Whales have the right of secession?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014 wrote: the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to unilaterally secede from the United Kingdom, because the constitution is a reserved matter for the UK parliament.
Mannahnin wrote: I have a lot of respect for people who move to another country. People with the gumption and follow-through to actually do it and leave the fields that they know usually have a kind of courage and will that most people lack. People who've lived in a different country and society, especially with another primary language, IME usually gain a better perspective on society and humanity than those of us who just stay in one.
Absolutely. It's a hell of thing to leave behind the comfort and safety of home, and the support network you had in case things went wrong, to try and strive for a better life somewhere else.
I was having a laugh the other day because my folks were saying how hard working Chinese folk are. I'd told them I'd been to China, and they're as lazy as we are, on the whole, more so because there's a billion of them and over-employment is just how things are. The people who are actually hard working are immigrants, Chinese or otherwise, because they're the people who've chosen to move to another country to build something better for themselves and their family.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ma55ter_fett wrote: I have a special brand of contempt reserved for expat's, American ones in particular.
If you think there is a problem with America then get out there and do something about it, don't say you're going to run away.
I think you've gotten confused as to exactly why people become ex-pats.
Most of them are just following their careers or better economic opportunities, or simply like the weather and lifestyle somewhere else. A lot of people fall in love with someone who lives in another country and either they or their spouse has to become an expat.
People leaving because there's a problem or they don't like the way the political winds are blowing are extremely rare, despite how much noise people make on the internet about it.
Frazzled wrote: I think Mississippi should secede, just because its so &)(^ing hard to type "Mississippi" correctly. I'd like New Mexico to secede, and then we can dare Old Mexico to take it back.
I think New York and New Jersey should declare war on each other and go at it in the streets with giant boxing gloves, whippy sticks, and the occasional shoe.
I'm told that the Western half of New York will gladly embrace anything that gets the US to either make them their own state or give them to PA. Taxes are a bitch.
not just western new york, but most of upstate new york.
The needs and culture of NYC and upstate new York are vastly different.
The way NYC votes does not reflect how upstate new york votes, yet we in upstate New York are anchored down by them "city folk"
And then they send all the pedophiles, criminals, etc. to my area. Amazing how many people committed crimes in the NYC area live in my area. :(
Frazzled wrote: I think Mississippi should secede, just because its so &)(^ing hard to type "Mississippi" correctly. I'd like New Mexico to secede, and then we can dare Old Mexico to take it back.
I think New York and New Jersey should declare war on each other and go at it in the streets with giant boxing gloves, whippy sticks, and the occasional shoe.
I'm told that the Western half of New York will gladly embrace anything that gets the US to either make them their own state or give them to PA. Taxes are a bitch.
not just western new york, but most of upstate new york.
The needs and culture of NYC and upstate new York are vastly different.
The way NYC votes does not reflect how upstate new york votes, yet we in upstate New York are anchored down by them "city folk"
And then they send all the pedophiles, criminals, etc. to my area. Amazing how many people committed crimes in the NYC area live in my area. :(
So pretty similar to Chicago and the rest of the state?
Ratbarf wrote: Which from what I understand would put the North at a severe disadvantage, as iirc, the majority of the military is made up of southerners.
The Southern states, if we define that by the states that seceded in the Civil War, have about 95 million people living in them. That sounds like a lot, until you realise they're up against 215 million people in the rest of the country. Even if those states had a tendency to enrol in the military more, it can't make up for the 2:1 population shortfall.
Not that another Civil War will play out the same as the last one. Afterall, Florida and Virginia voted for Obama, so it's pretty ludicrous to pretend they'd suddenly switch over and fight against the current Federal government. And at the same time there's a whole load of states in the mid-west that are strongly conservative now that didn't side with the South in the 1860s, if for no other reason than they weren't states at the time. So if we divide population by Obama and Romney states we get a different picture, but one where the final figures don't move all that much - the red states have 112 million people, to 198 million in the blue states (losing Florida and Virginia really hurts that count).
Point is, that's still assuming a best case scenario for the secessionists, as it assumes that states that only just voted against Obama would somehow hold that belief so strongly that they'd take up arms and secede. And even then the secessionists are down 2:1.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Its a false argument. All the states get back more than they pay. Thats the issue. We're running a $1.1 TRILLION annual deficit. Anything else is just a pack of nonsensical statements.
It is not a false argument.
They look at state payments vs state receipts on a twenty year average, over which time many time states have paid in a lot more than they have gotten back. The big losers California and new england, particularly New York. The big winners are the midwest and Southern states.
That is a basic, undeniable fact. The states that make the most noise about how big and horribly the federal government is take in way more from that big, horrible organisation than they pay out.
Frazzled wrote: I think Mississippi should secede, just because its so &)(^ing hard to type "Mississippi" correctly. I'd like New Mexico to secede, and then we can dare Old Mexico to take it back.
I think New York and New Jersey should declare war on each other and go at it in the streets with giant boxing gloves, whippy sticks, and the occasional shoe.
I'm told that the Western half of New York will gladly embrace anything that gets the US to either make them their own state or give them to PA. Taxes are a bitch.
not just western new york, but most of upstate new york.
The needs and culture of NYC and upstate new York are vastly different.
The way NYC votes does not reflect how upstate new york votes, yet we in upstate New York are anchored down by them "city folk"
And then they send all the pedophiles, criminals, etc. to my area. Amazing how many people committed crimes in the NYC area live in my area. :(
So pretty similar to Chicago and the rest of the state?
Maybe, I don't know much about Chicago or Illinois other than the one day I spent walking around Chicago because the plane I was suppose to board broke down.
Chicago has the best Chili Dogs ever. And first tried a deep fried snickers too.
AustonT wrote: Do Scotland and Whales have the right of secession?
I'd think if there was an actual right to secede then you wouldn't really have a country, you'd have an economic co-operative or an alliance.
I think the 'we are a single political entity and that's just how it is and people can't really think of it being any other way' is a really important part of making a country what it is. I think that's a large reason the US shifted from being an a collection of states to a single nation in 1864 - not just because it was clear the Fed wasn't letting any state secede, but also because the people started thinking of themselves primarily as Americans.
sebster wrote: Afterall, Florida and Virginia voted for Obama, so it's pretty ludicrous to pretend they'd suddenly switch over and fight against the current Federal government.
Assuming that Obama is the issue, which isn't true in several of the states that have petitions for secession, which do include 'blue' states.
I'm going to utter words that I feel have not been uttered seriously for a long time now, but are probably going to start being said again:
state's rights.
Most of these states have different reasons for spewing this idiocy. NY: taxes, Texas: a wish to return to being their own country, and so on.
Well, we should probably acknowledge that there have not been any "states" that started petitions for secession, just some folks living in those states.
sebster wrote: I think that's a large reason the US shifted from being an a collection of states to a single nation in 1864 - not just because it was clear the Fed wasn't letting any state secede, but also because the people started thinking of themselves primarily as Americans.
I might point out that view was not at all the prevalent one in 1864. Really, it didn't until the Cold War, and is starting to show cracks now that it's over, despite 100 years of government run brainwashing. People are dissatisfied with their perception of how the rule of the majority is not addressing their concerns. This leads them to start getting ideas of taking their state, which may or may not be filled with like minded people, elsewhere and form their own government that MIGHT do something about their concerns.
AustonT wrote: Do Scotland and Whales have the right of secession?
I'd think if there was an actual right to secede then you wouldn't really have a country, you'd have an economic co-operative or an alliance.
I think the 'we are a single political entity and that's just how it is and people can't really think of it being any other way' is a really important part of making a country what it is. I think that's a large reason the US shifted from being an a collection of states to a single nation in 1864 - not just because it was clear the Fed wasn't letting any state secede, but also because the people started thinking of themselves primarily as Americans.
d-usa wrote: Well, we should probably acknowledge that there have not been any "states" that started petitions for secession, just some folks living in those states.
This is what I was thinking.
If state representatives start bringing it up, we have an entertaining few years ahead. Until then, it's just silliness.
I would love to see this, Most people over here dont give two about Syrian civilians or freedoms
I do, but I doubt most people in the US really understand what stands to be lost in Syria. Sadly, I'd have to go as well. Si proelio juxta portam Sancti Thomae pergemus ad bellum iterum. Honoris exigit.
I would love to see this, Most people over here dont give two about Syrian civilians or freedoms
I do, but I doubt most people in the US really understand what stands to be lost in Syria. Sadly, I'd have to go as well. Si proelio juxta portam Sancti Thomae pergemus ad bellum iterum. Honoris exigit.
Err what exactly stands to be lost in Syria?
Because really I don't feel like burying more of my buddies for Middle Eastern hell holes. Or spending arse tons of money that doesn't exist.
AustonT wrote: Do Scotland and Whales have the right of secession?
I'd think if there was an actual right to secede then you wouldn't really have a country, you'd have an economic co-operative or an alliance.
I think the 'we are a single political entity and that's just how it is and people can't really think of it being any other way' is a really important part of making a country what it is. I think that's a large reason the US shifted from being an a collection of states to a single nation in 1864 - not just because it was clear the Fed wasn't letting any state secede, but also because the people started thinking of themselves primarily as Americans.
It's a republic not a democracy.
Or, more accurately, it is a republic and a democracy.
Because really I don't feel like burying more of my buddies for Middle Eastern hell holes. Or spending arse tons of money that doesn't exist.
So this better be freaking good.
Syria is both like, and very different, from any war you will have fought. From your reaction, I suspect you'd either understand too well, or never understand at all, my personal answer. I suppose that can't be helped.
Let me put it in a way you will understand: Syria now prevents more later.
Would you like to lose a few buddies in Syria, or all of them on the slopes of Tel Megiddo?
BaronIveagh wrote: I might point out that view was not at all the prevalent one in 1864. Really, it didn't until the Cold War, and is starting to show cracks now that it's over, despite 100 years of government run brainwashing. People are dissatisfied with their perception of how the rule of the majority is not addressing their concerns. This leads them to start getting ideas of taking their state, which may or may not be filled with like minded people, elsewhere and form their own government that MIGHT do something about their concerns.
Really? Not until the Cold War? And government brainwashing?
That's umm.... you're sounding pretty out there, dude.
And no, there is no greater call for secession. There's some petitions scoring fairly pitiful numbers of votes. Seriously, 10,000 votes sounds like a big number, but out of a country of 300 million it's well and truly in the fringe whackjob category.
Holy fething gak balls for the last fething time on this god forsaken gak pants of a fething feth feth website that is not a fething thing.
A republic just means you don't have a monarch. You can be both a republic and a democracy, or one of the two, or neither. The USA is both a democracy and a republic.
Really? Not until the Cold War? And government brainwashing?
That's umm.... you're sounding pretty out there, dude.
Not really. You might consider reading what was written at the time by average people rather than what was spewed by politicians. It really started catching on in the 1930's when large numbers of people were forced to migrate due to the depression, but really didn't get 'big' until WW2 and the beginning of the Cold War.
And what else do you call a education system that emphasizes how great the United States is as opposed to other, lesser countries, and how it's never, ever, ever done anything wrong. How Europeans were justified in bringing civilization and Christianity to the grateful natives who gladly signed over their land and then vanish from history until the battle of the Little Bighorn, and then all disappear after that.
Up into the 1960's, there were also chapters on how whites were superior to other, lesser races.
The Southern states, if we define that by the states that seceded in the Civil War, have about 95 million people living in them. That sounds like a lot, until you realise they're up against 215 million people in the rest of the country. Even if those states had a tendency to enrol in the military more, it can't make up for the 2:1 population shortfall.
Not that another Civil War will play out the same as the last one. Afterall, Florida and Virginia voted for Obama, so it's pretty ludicrous to pretend they'd suddenly switch over and fight against the current Federal government. And at the same time there's a whole load of states in the mid-west that are strongly conservative now that didn't side with the South in the 1860s, if for no other reason than they weren't states at the time. So if we divide population by Obama and Romney states we get a different picture, but one where the final figures don't move all that much - the red states have 112 million people, to 198 million in the blue states (losing Florida and Virginia really hurts that count).
Point is, that's still assuming a best case scenario for the secessionists, as it assumes that states that only just voted against Obama would somehow hold that belief so strongly that they'd take up arms and secede. And even then the secessionists are down 2:1.
I was making more of a point towards the notion that out of the currently available manpower and hardware the South would have a significant advantage. Possibly enough of one to force the issue for the first year or two until the North gets it's act together.
However I don't really think that Northerners would really have the will to forcefully stop the South from leaving if the South had the political will to force the separation.
And by South I now mean both Classical South (Hopefully Virginia would join, and Northern Florida likely would,) as well as most of the Midwest and those states in the South West. So basically everything except the Upper Eastern and Western Seaboards.
Kovnik Obama wrote: It's weird that there's no right to secede. It seems to take away some credibility from the notion that the United States are an actual Union of States... ?
Do Scotland and Whales have the right of secession?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014 wrote: the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to unilaterally secede from the United Kingdom, because the constitution is a reserved matter for the UK parliament.
...and the UK government have stated that they will abide by the result.
Scotland and Wales are both able to leave the union this way.
BaronIveagh wrote: Not really. You might consider reading what was written at the time by average people rather than what was spewed by politicians. It really started catching on in the 1930's when large numbers of people were forced to migrate due to the depression, but really didn't get 'big' until WW2 and the beginning of the Cold War.
Interesting claim. Have you got a source for that?
And what else do you call a education system that emphasizes how great the United States is as opposed to other, lesser countries, and how it's never, ever, ever done anything wrong. How Europeans were justified in bringing civilization and Christianity to the grateful natives who gladly signed over their land and then vanish from history until the battle of the Little Bighorn, and then all disappear after that.
I'd call it the standard educational system that every primary school kid goes through.
To call it brainwashing is to simply not understand what brainwashing is. Brainwashing involves placing immense pressure on someone, commonly psychological or social, and not relenting until that person has collapsed and given up control over their own thinking and come to accept whatever lies you're telling them.
Telling a kid a national myth in the classroom, and then leaving him alone to go read about in a textbook or to hear about from other people isn't brainwashing. It isn't even close.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ratbarf wrote: I was making more of a point towards the notion that out of the currently available manpower and hardware the South would have a significant advantage.
And I'm telling you that 'people in the South are more likely to join the army' doesn't overcome the basic difference in population, unless you're willing to claim that the difference is a 2:1 ratio, and that'd only put the two force at parity.
However I don't really think that Northerners would really have the will to forcefully stop the South from leaving if the South had the political will to force the separation.
That's what the South thought last time. Didn't work out so well.
And by South I now mean both Classical South (Hopefully Virginia would join, and Northern Florida likely would,) as well as most of the Midwest and those states in the South West. So basically everything except the Upper Eastern and Western Seaboards.
Because really I don't feel like burying more of my buddies for Middle Eastern hell holes. Or spending arse tons of money that doesn't exist.
So this better be freaking good.
Syria is both like, and very different, from any war you will have fought. From your reaction, I suspect you'd either understand too well, or never understand at all, my personal answer. I suppose that can't be helped.
Let me put it in a way you will understand: Syria now prevents more later.
Would you like to lose a few buddies in Syria, or all of them on the slopes of Tel Megiddo?
This sounds like a lead in to that crazy "Armageddon" theory that people throw out every now and then.
Honestly I'm not worried about ANYTHING in Israel because screwing the IDF has proven to drastically lower the human life span by an incredible margin.
You're really dancing around the question though. Lay it out. I've had enough concussions that I have issues remembering my name some days. What exactly does burning money and lives in another Middle Eastern gakhole get us? Besides keeping mortuary techs busy and letting us show off the COIN operation stuff we've been practicing for the last decade somewhere that isn't Afghanistan.
I can think of one benefit.
al-Assad is pretty clearly a bad guy, and killing him and any one who's willingly working for him to slaughter innocents can only be a good thing.
Albeit at the cost of antagonizing Russia, the president of which is intent on saber rattling like it's 1979 all over again.
Interesting claim. Have you got a source for that?
The diary of William McCarter (published, available for purchase), the papers of the Landis brothers of Lancaster PA (publication forthcoming, originals in the library of Congress), the papers of Senator Daniel Sturgeon from PA, take your pick the debates that surrounded the sixteenth and seventeenth amendments...
Brainwashing involves placing immense pressure on someone, commonly psychological or social, and not relenting until that person has collapsed and given up control over their own thinking and come to accept whatever lies you're telling them.
No, it can be a lot more subtle than that. What you're describing is the brute force approach to brainwashing that the government tried at Carlyle. The result was a staggering number of dead and damaged children. You say 'well, they can go read the truth, somewhere.' First, how many school students do you know that are going to go to the library and pick up a history book. Second...
Honestly I'm not worried about ANYTHING in Israel because screwing the IDF has proven to drastically lower the human life span by an incredible margin.
You're really dancing around the question though. Lay it out. I've had enough concussions that I have issues remembering my name some days. What exactly does burning money and lives in another Middle Eastern gakhole get us? Besides keeping mortuary techs busy and letting us show off the COIN operation stuff we've been practicing for the last decade somewhere that isn't Afghanistan.
For the US not having anything to do with Syria is a two fold issue. The first is that if the US refuses to stop Syria or aid anyone that gets caught up in it, it means that the US will be abandoning it's treaties left and right. This is not a good thing, for one's international standing. Second is Syria is already spreading, and destabilizing other countries as it does. If you think it would be bad fighting in Syria, wait until the US ignores if for a few years until half the region is going up in smoke and THEN tries to put the fire out. We both know they will.
Saying 'let Israel deal with it' is a bad idea, no matter how hard they are, there are not enough of them, considering how bad this has the potential to get. Unless you LIKE the idea of a conventional World War III in the desert. It's better to nip this in the bud now, look like the good guys while doing it, and take fewer casualties.
A simple 'death to traitors' would be more polite.
Corrected your typo.
On a more radical gun board where I have been called communist in the past my calm pro union statements seem to be getting moderator attention. I don't see how anyone can construe "all the petitioners are traitors, and they and their families should be driven from this nation at the point of a gun and everything they owned burned as a warning" could be construed negatively.
Baron,
What is Tel Mediggo? and at the risk of the conflict spreading is far smaller than people claim, both the Turks and Israelis will see to that. Furthermore the US does not have the political capital to wage another war in the ME anytime soon.
Kovnik Obama wrote: It's weird that there's no right to secede. It seems to take away some credibility from the notion that the United States are an actual Union of States... ?
Do Scotland and Whales have the right of secession?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014 wrote: the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to unilaterally secede from the United Kingdom, because the constitution is a reserved matter for the UK parliament.
...and the UK government have stated that they will abide by the result.
Scotland and Wales are both able to leave the union this way.
sebster wrote: They look at state payments vs state receipts on a twenty year average, over which time many time states have paid in a lot more than they have gotten back. The big losers California and new england, particularly New York. The big winners are the midwest and Southern states.
Minnesota and Wisconsin are big losers in that list too. They have paid out way more than they have brought in.
This comes up so often, I felt like we need to start using some kind of meme.
Of course, some one will need to tell me why these two concepts are mutually exclusive.
It didn't really come up, I've just decided that response is what sebster gets when he quotes me out of context.
Interesting claim. Have you got a source for that?
The diary of William McCarter (published, available for purchase), the papers of the Landis brothers of Lancaster PA (publication forthcoming, originals in the library of Congress), the papers of Senator Daniel Sturgeon from PA, take your pick the debates that surrounded the sixteenth and seventeenth amendments...
Brainwashing involves placing immense pressure on someone, commonly psychological or social, and not relenting until that person has collapsed and given up control over their own thinking and come to accept whatever lies you're telling them.
No, it can be a lot more subtle than that. What you're describing is the brute force approach to brainwashing that the government tried at Carlyle. The result was a staggering number of dead and damaged children. You say 'well, they can go read the truth, somewhere.' First, how many school students do you know that are going to go to the library and pick up a history book. Second...
Honestly I'm not worried about ANYTHING in Israel because screwing the IDF has proven to drastically lower the human life span by an incredible margin.
You're really dancing around the question though. Lay it out. I've had enough concussions that I have issues remembering my name some days. What exactly does burning money and lives in another Middle Eastern gakhole get us? Besides keeping mortuary techs busy and letting us show off the COIN operation stuff we've been practicing for the last decade somewhere that isn't Afghanistan.
For the US not having anything to do with Syria is a two fold issue. The first is that if the US refuses to stop Syria or aid anyone that gets caught up in it, it means that the US will be abandoning it's treaties left and right. This is not a good thing, for one's international standing. Second is Syria is already spreading, and destabilizing other countries as it does. If you think it would be bad fighting in Syria, wait until the US ignores if for a few years until half the region is going up in smoke and THEN tries to put the fire out. We both know they will.
Saying 'let Israel deal with it' is a bad idea, no matter how hard they are, there are not enough of them, considering how bad this has the potential to get. Unless you LIKE the idea of a conventional World War III in the desert. It's better to nip this in the bud now, look like the good guys while doing it, and take fewer casualties.
n0t_u wrote: So if they secede from the US they become their own countries right?
Provided they win the war, yes. We've been down this road before.
This time, though, we below the Mason-Dixon will have shoes.
I think you missed the phrase 'peacefully'. Only an idiot wants a civil war.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Well, we should probably acknowledge that there have not been any "states" that started petitions for secession, just some folks living in those states.
If the southern states want to form their own nation, it would have a dramatic effect on the rest of the US. Look at the electoral college for the 2012 presidential race to see what will happen to US politics.
Instead of having 'republican vs democrats' running for office, we will have 'democrats vs green party'
labmouse42 wrote: I think you missed the phrase 'peacefully'. Only an idiot wants a civil war.
Funny thing about that? The South would have peacefully seceded if the North had let it during the Civil War. Full-fledged secession attempts result in violence.
Seaward wrote: Funny thing about that? The South would have peacefully seceded if the North had let it during the Civil War. Full-fledged secession attempts result in violence.
Uh...no. If that was the case, they would have looked for peaceful solutions instead of firing bullets -- which was the spark that started the civil war.
Stating "The Southern States would have gladly peacefully succeeded, save for the Northern aggression" is as off as when my wife says "The Civil War was all about slavery".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter
I think I was perfectly clear. During the US Civil War, more Americans died than in any other war in history. Only an idiot was want another US civil war.
(US citizen of course, the Talaban would dance with joy if we started killing ourselves)
we allow constituent countries to leave when the USA doesn't?
You don't that's kind of the point. You somehow seem to have repeatedly missed that.
You're claiming that the UK doesn't allow countries to leave, despite an upcoming referendum on independance in Scotland.
Is there some really obvious thing I'm missing here?
Yeah we'll circle around to the obvious thing you are missing.
First: Let's pretend Whales not Scotland, are we still following?, had a referendum for independence yesterday. Would they be forming a Government today?
Yeah we'll circle around to the obvious thing you are missing.
First: Let's pretend Wales not Scotland, are we still following?, had a referendum for independence yesterday. Would they be forming a Government today?
You don't form governments in a day but yes, if the Welsh voted for independence they'd get it.
Please try to keep the condescending tone out of your posts in future, too. And it's Wales, not Whales.
Huffy wrote:Baron,
What is Tel Mediggo? and at the risk of the conflict spreading is far smaller than people claim, both the Turks and Israelis will see to that. Furthermore the US does not have the political capital to wage another war in the ME anytime soon.
Tel Mediggo is probably better known by it's Greek name: Armageddon. It was a hilltop town at the north end of the Judean section of the Via Maris during the Roman period. Throughout history, several battles have been waged there, the most recent being the first world war, the British using it as a more or less as a diversion while they encircled the Ottomans through the Judean hills. It's a terrible defensive position, but one that the terrain has, in the past, forced on more than one army, as it's an important road junction.
Frazzled wrote:
What the hell is that letter?
Quite possibly the worst conceived parent- teacher letter ever. Snopes has it listed as 'undetermined' if genuine or not, but it's been making the rounds of the internet for years now. When I was a kid, my parents got a similar one for my pointing out that if Lee had, in fact, won the battle of Gettysburg, then the Union would be a very different place than it is. (The teachers edition apparently had a typo, the teacher having no idea about the Civil War beyond it happened when Lincoln was president.) Sadly, my parents didn't keep a copy of that one, unlike the framed one they had of the superintendent issuing them a written apology for calling them liars.
Iraq round 2, as you put it, would have been very different if the US invaded in the middle of Saddam committing a massive pogrom of the entire population of Iraq, and stopped it, instead of afterward.
Honestly I'm not worried about ANYTHING in Israel because screwing the IDF has proven to drastically lower the human life span by an incredible margin.
You're really dancing around the question though. Lay it out. I've had enough concussions that I have issues remembering my name some days. What exactly does burning money and lives in another Middle Eastern gakhole get us? Besides keeping mortuary techs busy and letting us show off the COIN operation stuff we've been practicing for the last decade somewhere that isn't Afghanistan.
For the US not having anything to do with Syria is a two fold issue. The first is that if the US refuses to stop Syria or aid anyone that gets caught up in it, it means that the US will be abandoning it's treaties left and right. This is not a good thing, for one's international standing. Second is Syria is already spreading, and destabilizing other countries as it does. If you think it would be bad fighting in Syria, wait until the US ignores if for a few years until half the region is going up in smoke and THEN tries to put the fire out. We both know they will.
Saying 'let Israel deal with it' is a bad idea, no matter how hard they are, there are not enough of them, considering how bad this has the potential to get. Unless you LIKE the idea of a conventional World War III in the desert. It's better to nip this in the bud now, look like the good guys while doing it, and take fewer casualties.
I don't recall any treaties to deal with Syria. Sure Turkey can do the whole NATO thing but that's really about it.
Yes the Israelis CAN and WILL handle ANYTHING the rest of the middle east can throw at them. They've done it before with a smaller army and worse equipment so I don't think it's outrageous to think that the IDF can take care of business.
As to Syria spreading, isn't it what was spread to? Part of the Arab Spring or whatever the media's calling it now?
There is no direct benefit to the United States or any one else for intervening in the Syrian civil war, possibly a little more then Libya, but considering that was a complete waste of time and money as well there you have it. The French keep acting like they want to sack up and be a real world power again, they can handle this one.
Funny thing about that? The South would have peacefully seceded if the North had let it during the Civil War. Full-fledged secession attempts result in violence.
Yeah we'll circle around to the obvious thing you are missing.
First: Let's pretend Wales not Scotland, are we still following?, had a referendum for independence yesterday. Would they be forming a Government today?
You don't form governments in a day but yes, if the Welsh voted for independence they'd get it.
Please try to keep the condescending tone out of your posts in future, too. And it's Wales, not Whales.
Not a goddamn thing would change. Referendums are not legally binding. Niether is a popular referendum for independance constitutionally enforceable without a corresponding Act by Westminster, which there is no compunction to make.
I expect this from Canadians, but you're an American. You should learn the history. The South firing the first shot does not negate my statement that they would have peacefully seceded had they been allowed.
Lincoln campaigned on a, "secession is treason!" platform. He won. Several states declared they were leaving the union. Nobody had shot anybody at this point. Buchanan and Lincoln both declared the seceding states to be in open rebellion, and the latter declared he would put said rebellion down by force if he had to. There was even a peace conference prior to the commencement of hostilities, but nobody could agree on terms.
I'll go on, if you need me to.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
labmouse42 wrote: Uh...no. If that was the case, they would have looked for peaceful solutions instead of firing bullets -- which was the spark that started the civil war.
Stating "The Southern States would have gladly peacefully succeeded, save for the Northern aggression" is as off as when my wife says "The Civil War was all about slavery".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter
See above. You might want to take a poke around the rest of Wikipedia before making assertions with no basis in fact.
TheHammer wrote: Secession is treason. I don't see what is so complicated or controversial about this.
Just to recap:
Me: "The South would have seceded peacefully had they been allowed."
Canadian: "Nuh uh! They shot first!"
American: "Yeah! They shot first! You're wrong!"
Me: "Actually, they tried to peacefully secede, and didn't take up arms and fire that first shot until the government of the Union said they'd be going to war to keep the South."
Another American: "Secession is treason!"
I'm starting to suspect there's a hive mind at work here. One line of defense fails, another unrelated one gets opened.
I expect this from Canadians, but you're an American. You should learn the history. The South firing the first shot does not negate my statement that they would have peacefully seceded had they been allowed.
Lincoln campaigned on a, "secession is treason!" platform. He won. Several states declared they were leaving the union. Nobody had shot anybody at this point. Buchanan and Lincoln both declared the seceding states to be in open rebellion, and the latter declared he would put said rebellion down by force if he had to. There was even a peace conference prior to the commencement of hostilities, but nobody could agree on terms.
I'll go on, if you need me to.
Please do, I would love to see what you know about the American Civil War.
TheHammer wrote: Secession is treason. I don't see what is so complicated or controversial about this.
Just to recap:
Me: "The South would have seceded peacefully had they been allowed."
Canadian: "Nuh uh! They shot first!"
American: "Yeah! They shot first! You're wrong!"
Me: "Actually, they tried to peacefully secede, and didn't take up arms and fire that first shot until the government of the Union said they'd be going to war to keep the South."
Another American: "Secession is treason!"
I'm starting to suspect there's a hive mind at work here. One line of defense fails, another unrelated one gets opened.
To be clear then, I don't give a flying feth about the cause of the Civil War.
To also be clear, as a Southerner and a Texan, Secession is treason. Send them to The White Tower! The British will know what to do.
Seaward wrote: I expect this from Canadians, but you're an American. You should learn the history. The South firing the first shot does not negate my statement that they would have peacefully seceded had they been allowed.
Your lack of historical knowledge is showing. Everything about the Southern secession was NOT peaceful. They wanted to fight and they wanted a war. They took the first chance they had to start a fight which was nothing more than a mere supply run to a fort. Go read the speeches and news paper articles from across the South of the time period. They wanted a war so they could win it, assure their independence, and gain international support. Their entire plan was built around having a war.
Lincoln campaigned on a, "secession is treason!" platform. He won. Several states declared they were leaving the union. Nobody had shot anybody at this point. Buchanan and Lincoln both declared the seceding states to be in open rebellion, and the latter declared he would put said rebellion down by force if he had to. There was even a peace conference prior to the commencement of hostilities, but nobody could agree on terms.
I'll go on, if you need me to.
A willingness to use force = aggressive party? Lincoln was still open to negotiation. It was Republicans and Democrats in the Senate, and Southern governors and political machines that were unwilling to work together. Lincoln was a moderate in the political conflicts leading up to the war. He was the best friend the South had in the North.
"Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
These are not the words of a man who is trying to start a war. The South wanted to fight, and they took the first chance they got. Even a basic analysis of Southern Secession produces a lack of justifiability for secession or aggression at Fort Sumter. The South started the war. They started it over petty senseless fears that make absolutely no sense, and worse they started it to protect an institution that less than a quarter of the South's (white) population had any stake in! Pretending otherwise is a flight of fancy.
Yeah we'll circle around to the obvious thing you are missing.
First: Let's pretend Wales not Scotland, are we still following?, had a referendum for independence yesterday. Would they be forming a Government today?
You don't form governments in a day but yes, if the Welsh voted for independence they'd get it.
Please try to keep the condescending tone out of your posts in future, too. And it's Wales, not Whales.
Not a goddamn thing would change. Referendums are not legally binding. Niether is a popular referendum for independance constitutionally enforceable without a corresponding Act by Westminster, which there is no compunction to make.
No because allowing it constitutionally would be bizarre, and unEnglish. There is no presadant for the breakaway of a part of the United Kingdom. The Conservative government, despite the full title of their party being the Conservative & Unionist Party (i.e. they are ideologically opposed to a break up of the union), have said that the referendum will be binding. If the Scots vote yes, they'll grant it.
Not only is this odd from the Conservative Party (though since we've had 12 years of Thatcherite Labour, not *that* odd), but it still means that peaceful sucession is possible. Do you think Obama would announce that he would permit the peaceful breakaway of the state of the Union? I don't believe that for a second.
TheHammer wrote: Secession is treason. I don't see what is so complicated or controversial about this.
Just to recap:
Me: "The South would have seceded peacefully had they been allowed."
Canadian: "Nuh uh! They shot first!"
American: "Yeah! They shot first! You're wrong!"
Me: "Actually, they tried to peacefully secede, and didn't take up arms and fire that first shot until the government of the Union said they'd be going to war to keep the South."
Another American: "Secession is treason!"
I'm starting to suspect there's a hive mind at work here. One line of defense fails, another unrelated one gets opened.
You're only half as cute as you think you are.
There's no such thing as "peaceful secession" when they were seceding so that they could continue inflicting violence upon those they have violently enslaved.
Or should we continue talking about the civil war and the South's treasonous secession as though it was done for anything more than to perpetuate violence upon those they had cruelly and grotesquely exploited?
TheHammer wrote: Or should we continue talking about the civil war and the South's treasonous secession as though it was done for anything more than to perpetuate violence upon those they had cruelly and grotesquely exploited?
They pretend it wasn't about slavery. Some states rights nonsense. That way they can scream 'For the Confederacy!" and "But I'm not Racist" at the same time.
Yeah we'll circle around to the obvious thing you are missing.
First: Let's pretend Wales not Scotland, are we still following?, had a referendum for independence yesterday. Would they be forming a Government today?
You don't form governments in a day but yes, if the Welsh voted for independence they'd get it.
Please try to keep the condescending tone out of your posts in future, too. And it's Wales, not Whales.
The opinion polls show 86% of Welsh people don't want to leave the union.
No one at the time seriously thought that the US was going to split into two countries, everyone was going to be happy about it, and that would be the end of it. The goal of Southern secession was to insure, once and for all, through military force, the slavocrats' position that their property rights in slaves could not and would never be infringed upon.
The irony is two-fold. First, the fact that the pro-slavery bloc was in fact easily one of if not the most powerful factions in national politics at the time, with the federal government coming down in most cases in support of slavery (Dred Scott, Prigg v. PN, Compromise of 1850). Secondly, that for all their vaunted support of "state's rights", the South was perfectly willing to abandon this position and demand that the Federal government interfere with Northern or territorial affairs (again, Prigg v. PN, Dred Scott), as long as it benefited slavery.
Yeah we'll circle around to the obvious thing you are missing.
First: Let's pretend Wales not Scotland, are we still following?, had a referendum for independence yesterday. Would they be forming a Government today?
You don't form governments in a day but yes, if the Welsh voted for independence they'd get it.
Please try to keep the condescending tone out of your posts in future, too. And it's Wales, not Whales.
The opinion polls show 86% of Welsh people don't want to leave the union.
edit - just realised you're from the UK, forgive me if I seem patronising in my post I assumed you were American and therefore I'd need to explain British politics a bit more than I would otherwise.
I never said they wanted to leave, I said they could if they wanted to. Or at least I'd infer that, since they're allowing Scotland to break away. Though whether or not they'd actually allow it, or are just saying that they would because they know the nationalists will lose the referendum, is anyone's guess.
It's worth noting that support for Scottish independance is actually higher in England. Could you say the same in the US? Would more New Yorkers be in favour of the South seceeding than the locals themselves?
TheHammer wrote: Or should we continue talking about the civil war and the South's treasonous secession as though it was done for anything more than to perpetuate violence upon those they had cruelly and grotesquely exploited?
They pretend it wasn't about slavery. Some states rights nonsense. That way they can scream 'For the Confederacy!" and "But I'm not Racist" at the same time.
See thats a Yankee misnomer. It wasn't about slavery.
It was about rich people and slavery. The average Joe Blow didn't have slaves. The average Joe Blow couldn't legally buy his way out of the draft.
On boths dies it was Rich man's war, Poor man's fight.
I'm as big a fan of irony as anybody, but c'mon, buddy.
Everything about the Southern secession was NOT peaceful. They wanted to fight and they wanted a war. They took the first chance they had to start a fight which was nothing more than a mere supply run to a fort. Go read the speeches and news paper articles from across the South of the time period. They wanted a war so they could win it, assure their independence, and gain international support. Their entire plan was built around having a war.
Think there would have been a war had Lincoln let them go? We'll never know, but I doubt it. No point. They didn't want to destroy the North, they wanted to form their own country.
A willingness to use force = aggressive party? Lincoln was still open to negotiation. It was Republicans and Democrats in the Senate, and Southern governors and political machines that were unwilling to work together. Lincoln was a moderate in the political conflicts leading up to the war. He was the best friend the South had in the North.
"Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
These are not the words of a man who is trying to start a war. The South wanted to fight, and they took the first chance they got. Even a basic analysis of Southern Secession produces a lack of justifiability for secession or aggression at Fort Sumter. The South started the war. They started it over petty senseless fears that make absolutely no sense, and worse they started it to protect an institution that less than a quarter of the South's (white) population had any stake in! Pretending otherwise is a flight of fancy.
I understand you talked yourself into a corner earlier, but trying to inch deeper into it isn't going to help. To suggest that the North was willing to allow the South to secede is absolutely ludicrous. Either you believe the North was indeed willing to let the South secede, in contravention of all established historical record, or else you do not. If you do not, then you're making my point for me; had the South been allowed to go, they would have gone.
TheHammer wrote: Or should we continue talking about the civil war and the South's treasonous secession as though it was done for anything more than to perpetuate violence upon those they had cruelly and grotesquely exploited?
They pretend it wasn't about slavery. Some states rights nonsense. That way they can scream 'For the Confederacy!" and "But I'm not Racist" at the same time.
In addition to slavery, I thought one of the biggest reason why the south wanted to fight was what they thought were unfair taxes/tariffs on the textile industry imposed by the "North"??
There's no such thing as "peaceful secession" when they were seceding so that they could continue inflicting violence upon those they have violently enslaved.
Or should we continue talking about the civil war and the South's treasonous secession as though it was done for anything more than to perpetuate violence upon those they had cruelly and grotesquely exploited?
I'm not talking about why the South fought the war, why the South wanted to secede, whether it was legal, or anything else but whether or not the South would have left the Union without a fight had they been allowed to. You're welcome to continue railing against the evils of an institution that hasn't shown its face in this country for over a century if you like, I guess. Good luck?
I don't recall any treaties to deal with Syria. Sure Turkey can do the whole NATO thing but that's really about it.
So far there have been cross boarder attacks in Turkey, Israel, Lebanon, and Jordan, AFAIK. Of those, Lebanon is, I believe, the only one without some form of military agreement with the US.
Yes the Israelis CAN and WILL handle ANYTHING the rest of the middle east can throw at them. They've done it before with a smaller army and worse equipment so I don't think it's outrageous to think that the IDF can take care of business.
You'll pardon me if I take a little less sunny and a little more realistic view that a region wide war might end badly for Israel. Particularly if their policy of 'strike first' blows up in their face. Using the six day war as an example, the Israeli airforce was able to launch preemptive strikes at aircraft on the ground, quickly neutralizing Egypt's airpower. They also, for all their assertions they had inferior tanks, actually had much superior tanks to the T-34/85 and Panzer 4 in the form of US M48A3 Patton, British Centurions upgraded to 105mm, M-50/51 'Super Sherman', and French AMX 13's. (Btw: the volume of fire those last two can generate is fething insane, depending on the Super Sherman's gun loadout). Egypt had a handful of 'modern' Soviet tanks at the time (T-54 export 'monkey' models with all the electronics stripped out).
While all sides outnumbered Israel 5 to 1, they only ever deployed 2 to 1. Further, Israel, like Syria now, received arms shipments despite being under embargo, from the US and Britain.
I might point to the Yom Kippur War which was only won because, again, the US bailed Israel out after massive material losses, and only because Israel was threatening to nuke Damascus, and start World War 3 with the Russians. So, no, they didn't handle 'anything' the rest of the middle east could throw at them without the US bailing them out.
As to Syria spreading, isn't it what was spread to? Part of the Arab Spring or whatever the media's calling it now?
facepalm. I'm talking about actual combat spreading to other countries, not a vague call to tare down tyrants. Both Israel and Turkey have been exchanging fire with Syria in cross boarder 'events' already.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: The French keep acting like they want to sack up and be a real world power again, they can handle this one.
Yeah, the US did say something similar to that once before. "Why should Americans die to help defend places like Czechoslovakia and Poland? Let France and England handle it. We'll sell them all the guns they need in the meantime."
TheHammer wrote: Or should we continue talking about the civil war and the South's treasonous secession as though it was done for anything more than to perpetuate violence upon those they had cruelly and grotesquely exploited?
They pretend it wasn't about slavery. Some states rights nonsense. That way they can scream 'For the Confederacy!" and "But I'm not Racist" at the same time.
See thats a Yankee misnomer. It wasn't about slavery.
It was about rich people and slavery. The average Joe Blow didn't have slaves. The average Joe Blow couldn't legally buy his way out of the draft.
On boths dies it was Rich man's war, Poor man's fight.
It's not a misnomer, just an understanding of history: while the vast majority of southern whites did not own slaves, they were not opposed to slavery nor did they have much political power. Those that owned slaves had all the power in the South, so when we speak of secession and the Civil War being the result of the South's desire to continue slavery we do not do so out of some misunderstanding of history, but out of a lack of pedantry one requires to frame the debate as anything but what it actually was.
In short, yes, few owned slaves but those few called the shots. Even if the rest of the society was able to affect change they likely would not have changed much because it isn't like economically disadvantaged whites (who were economically disadvantaged in large part due to slavery (similar to today's rural whites who constantly vote against their self interest)) were in favor of abolition or anything.
I'm as big a fan of irony as anybody, but c'mon, buddy.
Everything about the Southern secession was NOT peaceful. They wanted to fight and they wanted a war. They took the first chance they had to start a fight which was nothing more than a mere supply run to a fort. Go read the speeches and news paper articles from across the South of the time period. They wanted a war so they could win it, assure their independence, and gain international support. Their entire plan was built around having a war.
Think there would have been a war had Lincoln let them go? We'll never know, but I doubt it. No point. They didn't want to destroy the North, they wanted to form their own country.
A willingness to use force = aggressive party? Lincoln was still open to negotiation. It was Republicans and Democrats in the Senate, and Southern governors and political machines that were unwilling to work together. Lincoln was a moderate in the political conflicts leading up to the war. He was the best friend the South had in the North.
"Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
These are not the words of a man who is trying to start a war. The South wanted to fight, and they took the first chance they got. Even a basic analysis of Southern Secession produces a lack of justifiability for secession or aggression at Fort Sumter. The South started the war. They started it over petty senseless fears that make absolutely no sense, and worse they started it to protect an institution that less than a quarter of the South's (white) population had any stake in! Pretending otherwise is a flight of fancy.
I understand you talked yourself into a corner earlier, but trying to inch deeper into it isn't going to help. To suggest that the North was willing to allow the South to secede is absolutely ludicrous. Either you believe the North was indeed willing to let the South secede, in contravention of all established historical record, or else you do not. If you do not, then you're making my point for me; had the South been allowed to go, they would have gone.
You seem to miss his point completely. The very act of secession was violent. The South knew it, and that is why they struck when they did: they believed that secession was violent and the only way to guarantee its success was to do so on the battlefield. At a certain point you have to acknowledge the very act of secession is violence, especially when they were seceding to protect an inherently violent system.
It was about rich people and slavery. The average Joe Blow didn't have slaves. The average Joe Blow couldn't legally buy his way out of the draft.
On boths dies it was Rich man's war, Poor man's fight.
The average Joe Blow was in danger of having his job taken by ex-slaves who'd do the same job for less money. Support for slavery was if anything stronger amongst the white working poor than it was amongst the slave owners themselves.
Frazzled wrote: It was about rich people and slavery. The average Joe Blow didn't have slaves. The average Joe Blow couldn't legally buy his way out of the draft.
On boths dies it was Rich man's war, Poor man's fight.
This.
The main reason for the US civil war was economics. Slavery was brought up halfway through the war. While its a noble benifit, its was a side-effect of the war, not the cause.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Testify wrote: The average Joe Blow was in danger of having his job taken by ex-slaves who'd do the same job for less money. Support for slavery was if anything stronger amongst the white working poor than it was amongst the slave owners themselves.
I was not aware of a large anti-slavery movement in the south.
Northerners were not hiring slaves to work in factories. In Joe Blow was a new englander, he was not worried about an unskilled slave taking his job in a factory.
The main reason for the US civil war was economics. Slavery was brought up halfway through the war. While its a noble benifit, its was a side-effect of the war, not the cause.
But the economy in question was slavery. Southern slaveowners, increasingly frightened by the growing abolitionist movement in the North and perceiving the North in general and Northern politicians specifically to be working as a single entity to eradicate slavery (entirely false), they began the war to establish once and for all their right to own human beings.
Frazzled wrote: It was about rich people and slavery. The average Joe Blow didn't have slaves. The average Joe Blow couldn't legally buy his way out of the draft.
On boths dies it was Rich man's war, Poor man's fight.
This.
The main reason for the US civil war was economics. Slavery was brought up halfway through the war. While its a noble benifit, its was a side-effect of the war, not the cause.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Testify wrote: The average Joe Blow was in danger of having his job taken by ex-slaves who'd do the same job for less money. Support for slavery was if anything stronger amongst the white working poor than it was amongst the slave owners themselves.
I was not aware of a large anti-slavery movement in the south.
Northerners were not hiring slaves to work in factories. In Joe Blow was a new englander, he was not worried about an unskilled slave taking his job in a factory.
Northerners were not hiring slaves to work in factories. In Joe Blow was a new englander, he was not worried about an unskilled slave taking his job in a factory.
But he was worried about them living in his neighbourhood. As they frequently wouldn't let the freed slaves move to the North.
Think there would have been a war had Lincoln let them go? We'll never know, but I doubt it. No point. They didn't want to destroy the North, they wanted to form their own country.
Yes actually. Once the South took off, a war would happen sooner or later. I doubt under Lincoln, but eventually they'd have started fighting each other. Especially over the territories.
I understand you talked yourself into a corner earlier, but trying to inch deeper into it isn't going to help. To suggest that the North was willing to allow the South to secede is absolutely ludicrous.
Your position is false because it ignores reconciliation. The North and Lincoln were still at the bargaining table when the South fired the first shot. It's the South that gave up peaceful exit, not the North.
I'm not talking about why the South fought the war, why the South wanted to secede, whether it was legal, or anything else but whether or not the South would have left the Union without a fight had they been allowed to. You're welcome to continue railing against the evils of an institution that hasn't shown its face in this country for over a century if you like, I guess. Good luck?
Then your arguing for nothing. There's not much point debating if there'd be a Civil War if we aren't talking about the legitimacy of secession. If secession is illegitimate it's very execution is an act of aggression on the part of the South.
LordofHats wrote: Yes actually. Once the South took off, a war would happen sooner or later. I doubt under Lincoln, but eventually they'd have started fighting each other. Especially over the territories.
So if the South had been allowed to secede, they would not have attacked the North anyway. Got it.
Wait a second, I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I said to start us on this odyssey exploring the deficiencies of public education in America!
Your position is false because it ignores reconciliation. The North and Lincoln were still at the bargaining table when the South fired the first shot. It's the South that gave up peaceful exit, not the North.
It doesn't, actually. I believe I was the one who mentioned that talks had been ongoing for quite a while before Ft. Sumter, though admittedly it was mostly to contradict the "golly, they blinsided us, who could've seen this coming?!" narrative you were weaving.
The South didn't "give up on peaceful exit," Lincoln told them there would be no peaceful exit. If you want to continue this discussion, I'm afraid I'm going to require that you stick within the bounds of fact rather than revisionism.
Then your arguing for nothing. There's not much point debating if there'd be a Civil War if we aren't talking about the legitimacy of secession. If secession is illegitimate it's very execution is an act of aggression on the part of the South.
Yeah, not so much, no.
There have been both peaceful secessions and violent ones throughout history. Whether they're "legitimate" is irrelevant to the fact that they actually occurred.
I'm not talking about why the South fought the war, why the South wanted to secede, whether it was legal, or anything else but whether or not the South would have left the Union without a fight had they been allowed to. You're welcome to continue railing against the evils of an institution that hasn't shown its face in this country for over a century if you like, I guess. Good luck?
Then your arguing for nothing. There's not much point debating if there'd be a Civil War if we aren't talking about the legitimacy of secession. If secession is illegitimate it's very execution is an act of aggression on the part of the South.
Exactly, the South only seceded after Lincoln was elected because they tried to argue their cause in legitimate and legal methods (an election) and lost. Any discussion about the legitimacy or right to secession, or state's rights, would be best done using an example other than the American Civil War as it was fought because childish Southern slave owners wanted to take their ball and go home after they lost an election.
Side note: When did it become the "intelligent and reasoned" argument that the Civil War started because of everything else but slavery? I'm serious, all the issues people bring up for causes of the Civil War stemmed very directly from slavery. Why not just say it? Yes, the economies were different, but that was because of slavery. Yes, the cultures were different, but again that was because of slavery (and an agrarian society that perpetuated itself because of slavery). Why are people trying to make slave owning traitors something heroic or noble, when in reality they were just filthy traitors who owned slaves?
They pretend it wasn't about slavery. Some states rights nonsense. That way they can scream 'For the Confederacy!" and "But I'm not Racist" at the same time.
Actually it really wasn't for most of them. Slavery was barely an issue, indeed, several Union states permitted slavery, until Lincoln decided that it was a good idea to keep France and England out of the war, and making it a war on slavery was the best way to go about it.
The battle of Fort Sumter was...complicated at best. One of the things that gets left out a great deal is that the Secretary of War issued orders to Anderson contrary to the wishes of then-President Buchanan, to occupy the otherwise empty Sumter, which Governor Pickens had (possibly correctly) understood to be being drawn down by the President to meet his demands that the US withdraw from Charleston Harbor. The real first shots of the war were actually fired by the cadets from the Citadel who had opened fire on the Star of the West, which was operating under a 'false flag' in an attempt to run supplies to Sumter.
The South then actually offered to buy Sumter and enter into a peace treaty with the US, which Lincoln refused, though Secretary of State Seward entered into under the table negotiations with them anyway.
In the mean time, the officers under PT Beauregard were playing games of their own. Beauregard offered Anderson the following terms: "If you will state the time which you will evacuate Fort Sumter, and agree in the meantime that you will not use your guns against us unless ours shall be employed against Fort Sumter, we will abstain from opening fire upon you." Anderson stated that unless he received supplies or orders by April 15th, he would withdraw. However, Chestnut, the Colonel in charge on site, decided that was too conditional an answer, and without awaiting orders, took it open himself to issue the order to open fire.
It was about rich people and slavery. The average Joe Blow didn't have slaves. The average Joe Blow couldn't legally buy his way out of the draft.
On boths dies it was Rich man's war, Poor man's fight.
The average Joe Blow was in danger of having his job taken by ex-slaves who'd do the same job for less money. Support for slavery was if anything stronger amongst the white working poor than it was amongst the slave owners themselves.
They pretend it wasn't about slavery. Some states rights nonsense. That way they can scream 'For the Confederacy!" and "But I'm not Racist" at the same time.
Actually it really wasn't for most of them. Slavery was barely an issue, indeed, several Union states permitted slavery, until Lincoln decided that it was a good idea to keep France and England out of the war, and making it a war on slavery was the best way to go about it.
Then what was the issue? States' rights? I've already highlighted examples of how Southern politicians abandoned that position at the drop of a hat to defend slavery. Northern oppression? Give an example. The election of Abraham Lincoln? Wasn't a cause for war, unless the South perceived it as a threat to slavery, which they did.
You can circle around it all you want, slavery was the cause of the war. Claiming it was otherwise may sound smart to people who don't know any better, but that does not make it true.
It was about rich people and slavery. The average Joe Blow didn't have slaves. The average Joe Blow couldn't legally buy his way out of the draft.
On boths dies it was Rich man's war, Poor man's fight.
The average Joe Blow was in danger of having his job taken by ex-slaves who'd do the same job for less money. Support for slavery was if anything stronger amongst the white working poor than it was amongst the slave owners themselves.
Vs. doing it for free as a slave?
Where do you think the money to pay them is going to come from?
It was about rich people and slavery. The average Joe Blow didn't have slaves. The average Joe Blow couldn't legally buy his way out of the draft.
On boths dies it was Rich man's war, Poor man's fight.
The average Joe Blow was in danger of having his job taken by ex-slaves who'd do the same job for less money. Support for slavery was if anything stronger amongst the white working poor than it was amongst the slave owners themselves.
Vs. doing it for free as a slave?
Where do you think the money to pay them is going to come from?
It was about rich people and slavery. The average Joe Blow didn't have slaves. The average Joe Blow couldn't legally buy his way out of the draft.
On boths dies it was Rich man's war, Poor man's fight.
The average Joe Blow was in danger of having his job taken by ex-slaves who'd do the same job for less money. Support for slavery was if anything stronger amongst the white working poor than it was amongst the slave owners themselves.
Vs. doing it for free as a slave?
Where do you think the money to pay them is going to come from?
???
Well if the slaves go from having no wages to having to be paid for their labour, that money will have to come from somewhere. They may be more efficient if they're free, but that's not going to offset all of the cost of their labour.
You're basically producing the same amount of goods, but have an increase in wage costs of x%. The only way to balance this is by a reduction in wages of everyone else.
Seaward wrote: So if the South had been allowed to secede, they would not have attacked the North anyway. Got it.
No the point is there is no peaceful secession in this case. Arguing that the war wouldn't have happened once the South seceeded shows a fundamental lack of understanding of why it happened like it did. Arguing Lincoln was an aggressor is equally absurdist.
Wait a second, I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I said to start us on this odyssey exploring the deficiencies of public education in America!
I'm from the South. I know plenty about the deficiencies.
It doesn't, actually. I believe I was the one who mentioned that talks had been ongoing for quite a while before Ft. Sumter, though admittedly it was mostly to contradict the "golly, they blinsided us, who could've seen this coming?!" narrative you were weaving.
That narrative only exists in your head. He who throws the first punch starts the fight. Prior to that punch its just a disagreement.
The South didn't "give up on peaceful exit," Lincoln told them there would be no peaceful exit.
And again. That narrative only exists in your head.
If you want to continue this discussion, I'm afraid I'm going to require that you stick within the bounds of fact rather than revisionism.
Wait wait wait wait. I'm arguing that the act of secession constitutes an act of aggression on the part of the South as a violation of the Consitution (as ruled by the Supreme Court) and that the South further initiated hostilities by firing on Fort Sumter and I'm the revisionist? You're right. Your schooling has clearly been deficient. That's the text book narrative of the Civil War. The exact opposite of revisionism (ignoring that using revisionism as a negative term is as absurdist as your narrative ).
Whether they're "legitimate" is irrelevant to the fact that they actually occurred.
You're side stepping. Either a secession is legitimate or illegitimate. An illegitimate secession is inherently an aggressive act on the part of the secessionist when no right to secede exists (properly this isn't even secession but rebellion). Probably one of the greatest flaws in the Civil War narrative is that we continue to call it the Southern Secession. A state cannot secede. They have no legal right to do so. To then do it isn't properly secession its rebellion which is an act of war.
Side note: When did it become the "intelligent and reasoned" argument that the Civil War started because of everything else but slavery?
After the war when asked most veterans would say they fought for the South to protect their homes not to protect slavery (which is true). Later on in the early 20th century Gone With the Wind and similar tales idealized the South and romanticized the conflict. In order to be supporters of the Confederacy but not racists later in the the later 20th century, some people have created a false narrative where 'states rights' was what the war is about ignoring nearly every speech made, newspaper printed, and nearly all primary source material from the era that makes it clear the war was centered around the peculiar institution.
Actually it really wasn't for most of them.
For the soldiers and the common Southerner no, but they didn't start the war. The land/slave owning elites did. And they started it for very stupid reasons.
Slavery was barely an issue, indeed, several Union states permitted slavery, until Lincoln decided that it was a good idea to keep France and England out of the war, and making it a war on slavery was the best way to go about it.
Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclimation for two reason. prior to the war he was against abolition. He wanted to contain slavery not destroy it and prior to the war this remained the dominant line of thought in Republican politics (the war itself radicalized the party). Lincoln issued the Emancipation to dead stop involvement by Britain and France and because he needed to motivate the North. Many in the North didn't care. Support for the war was wanning (draft riots anyone). However Lincoln turned a political conflict into an idealogical one by making Emancipation the goal of the war which both mobilized his reelection and Northerns for the war effort.
It was really a brilliant political move by one of the most brilliant politicians in US history.
The battle of Fort Sumter was...complicated at best.
Its complicated in that the events surrounding it might as well be from a spy thriller (a good one) but its not that complicated as to who started the fight.
The same amount of money spread out differently won't increase demand. In that day and age the spending habbits of poor whites and poor blacks would not have been radically different. It's not like poor white people were investing all their money in property.
It was about rich people and slavery. The average Joe Blow didn't have slaves. The average Joe Blow couldn't legally buy his way out of the draft.
On boths dies it was Rich man's war, Poor man's fight.
The average Joe Blow was in danger of having his job taken by ex-slaves who'd do the same job for less money. Support for slavery was if anything stronger amongst the white working poor than it was amongst the slave owners themselves.
Vs. doing it for free as a slave?
Where do you think the money to pay them is going to come from?
???
Well if the slaves go from having no wages to having to be paid for their labour, that money will have to come from somewhere. They may be more efficient if they're free, but that's not going to offset all of the cost of their labour.
You're basically producing the same amount of goods, but have an increase in wage costs of x%. The only way to balance this is by a reduction in wages of everyone else.
This is way OT but
compete with forced literally slave labor
or compete with labor that is at least paid a wage.
Which to choose which to choose....
Actually this argument has been about both the Irish and poor whites but more of a social thing for the poor whites vs. an actual economic argument for the Irish immigrants.
Considering a draft was quickly required I don't think the poor folks were particularly up in arms.
This is way OT but
compete with forced literally slave labor
or compete with labor that is at least paid a wage.
Which to choose which to choose....
Actually this argument has been about both the Irish and poor whites but more of a social thing for the poor whites vs. an actual economic argument for the Irish immigrants.
Considering a draft was quickly required I don't think the poor folks were particularly up in arms.
Say I have a cotton factory. 75 of my workers are free and 25 are slaves.
My cotton factory produces £110 worth of cotton a year. I pay my workers £1.3 each and pocket £10 for myself.
Suddenly those slaves are freed. I need to pay them for their labour too. Where am I going to get the money from? My margin isn't big enough to take the hit. Even if I do choose to reduce profit it won't be enough. Clearly, those free men are going to have to take a pay cut.
This is way OT but
compete with forced literally slave labor
or compete with labor that is at least paid a wage.
Which to choose which to choose....
Actually this argument has been about both the Irish and poor whites but more of a social thing for the poor whites vs. an actual economic argument for the Irish immigrants.
Considering a draft was quickly required I don't think the poor folks were particularly up in arms.
Say I have a cotton factory. 75 of my workers are free and 25 are slaves.
My cotton factory produces £110 worth of cotton a year. I pay my workers £1.3 each and pocket £10 for myself.
Suddenly those slaves are freed. I need to pay them for their labour too. Where am I going to get the money from? My margin isn't big enough to take the hit. Even if I do choose to reduce profit it won't be enough. Clearly, those free men are going to have to take a pay cut.
Imagine that but on a huge scale.
Then you're paying below market wages which you would have done anyway with more slaves if you could have. Your mill falls apart and your house is burned down in a fit of Southern Honor.
Frazzled wrote: It was about rich people and slavery. The average Joe Blow didn't have slaves. The average Joe Blow couldn't legally buy his way out of the draft.
On boths dies it was Rich man's war, Poor man's fight.
This.
The main reason for the US civil war was economics. Slavery was brought up halfway through the war. While its a noble benifit, its was a side-effect of the war, not the cause.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Testify wrote: The average Joe Blow was in danger of having his job taken by ex-slaves who'd do the same job for less money. Support for slavery was if anything stronger amongst the white working poor than it was amongst the slave owners themselves.
I was not aware of a large anti-slavery movement in the south.
Northerners were not hiring slaves to work in factories. In Joe Blow was a new englander, he was not worried about an unskilled slave taking his job in a factory.
NO NO NO. Look at the declarations of independence/secession whatever from the states that bailed. Its all about slavery.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
labmouse42 wrote: [Northerners were not hiring slaves to work in factories. In Joe Blow was a new englander, he was not worried about an unskilled slave taking his job in a factory.
Northerners were not hiring slaves to work in factories. In Joe Blow was a new englander, he was not worried about an unskilled slave taking his job in a factory.
But he was worried about them living in his neighbourhood. As they frequently wouldn't let the freed slaves move to the North.
codemonkey wrote:
Then what was the issue? States' rights? I've already highlighted examples of how Southern politicians abandoned that position at the drop of a hat to defend slavery. Northern oppression? Give an example. The election of Abraham Lincoln? Wasn't a cause for war, unless the South perceived it as a threat to slavery, which they did.
You can circle around it all you want, slavery was the cause of the war. Claiming it was otherwise may sound smart to people who don't know any better, but that does not make it true.
Actually it was very true. The real root causes were a combination of economics, modernization, southern and northern nationalism, and the marginalization of the South politically. Remember that Lincoln had won the election without even being on the ballot in 11 states.
"the tariff was only the pretext, and disunion and southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery question." - Andrew Jackson, 1833, on the Nullification Crisis, which was the first occasion that the South threatened to seceded.
The fact was that the Northern and Southern states had never really seen eye to eye and had very different cultures. What the politicians were about was power, regardless of the face they put on it, be it states rights or something else. The fact that there was a growing perception in the population that the Federal government no longer represented them or cared about their concerns was a rallying point, which Lincoln's election drove home with a sledge hammer.
In the end, slavery was just a pretext for a war a long time in coming.
LordofHats wrote:
No the point is there is no peaceful secession in this case. Arguing that the war wouldn't have happened once the South seceeded shows a fundamental lack of understanding of why it happened like it did. Arguing Lincoln was an aggressor is equally absurdist.
Absurdist, but historically accurate. One of the very first acts of the Confederate government was to offer the North a peace treaty and mutual defense agreement where in the South offered to purchase all the Federal lands in the South. Despite the urgings of his own cabinet, Lincoln refused to sign a peace treaty, as to do so, he felt, would legitimize the Confederacy. While neither side was willing to be the one to fire the first shot, Lincoln very deliberately closed the possibility of peaceful negotiation.
LordofHats wrote:
Wait wait wait wait. I'm arguing that the act of secession constitutes an act of aggression on the part of the South as a violation of the Consitution (as ruled by the Supreme Court) and that the South further initiated hostilities by firing on Fort Sumter and I'm the revisionist? You're right. Your schooling has clearly been deficient. That's the text book narrative of the Civil War. The exact opposite of revisionism (ignoring that using revisionism as a negative term is as absurdist as your narrative ).
Um, The Supreme Court ruled no such thing until after the war was over, and many view the ruling to this day to be more about legitimizing the war ex post facto then anything to do with the legal realities of the time. Further, the Court also ruled that, while unilateral secession was not permitted, a state could secede with the agreement of the other states. How exactly this would happen has never really been addressed.
LordofHats wrote:
Its complicated in that the events surrounding it might as well be from a spy thriller (a good one) but its not that complicated as to who started the fight.
Actually it's quite possible to argue that Colonel Chestnut exceeded his authority to open fire, or that the use of a 'false flag' ship (highly illegal under international law, even at the time) in an attempt to resupply Sumter was the cause of it. However, the end result was that, indeed, the Fort was fired upon.
Actually it was very true. The real root causes were a combination of economics, modernization, southern and northern nationalism, and the marginalization of the South politically. Remember that Lincoln had won the election without even being on the ballot in 11 states.
First off, the south was not marginalized politically. Leading up the 1860 elections the Democratic party and the South in particular held a strangle hold of near absolute power in federal government. That tariff South Caronlina got up in arms about? The democratic controlled congresses of the 1840's pretty much destroyed it, reducing it by 1860 to essentially nothing. Northern steel industrialists had more to complain about over the tariff than southerners. The Fugitive Slave law was passed by a Democratic congress against objections by the North and was one of the most obvious triggers for the conflict. The South was not marginalized. If anything it marginalized the North.
Economics? The North made almost all its money in agriculture and so did the south. Both were self sufficient for food. The North exported grains and the south exported cotton, rice, and tobacco. Forgive me. I don't think the plant a farmer grows is going to drive him to war with his neighbor. The only differences between these two in this respect is slaves and their use in the South being larger than in the North.
Modernization is a false category as it ultimately stems back to economic interests. Northern and Southern economic interests supported each other. Southern luxury goods went to the north for common goods and vice versa. Northern shipping was vital to Southern trade and the Northern shipping needed southern goods to trade. This isn't a system that fosters conflict it fosters cooperation. The states benefited much more from working together than from separating (and industrialists in the 1850's and 1860's were saying this very loudly as tensions rouse). What industry grew stronger in the north, like steel working, was a direct result of labor practices. Steel working requires skilled labor. Its not something a capitalist wants a slave doing.
There was only 1 truly significant difference between the North and the South. The widespread use and ownership of slaves. Every method of analysis ultimately stems back to slavery as a root cause of difference. And even then there are very few differences to be pointed out. Nothing significant enough to suggest the North and South should be fighting.
In the end, slavery was just a pretext for a war a long time in coming.
I've heard this theory before and its crap and always will be crap. Everything about the Civil War's origins is entrenched in slavery. The ongoing conflict between free soilers and slave owners is at the very heart of why it happened. The average southerner did not have a significantly different life from the average northerner. The elites of both regions had near identical interests baring slavery.
It really is about slavery. How the myth that it isn't and that the North and South were somehow widely different creatures has continued to persist baffles me. I blame Charles Beard. Damn fool should have kept his mouth shut.
One of the very first acts of the Confederate government was to offer the North a peace treaty and mutual defense agreement where in the South offered to purchase all the Federal lands in the South. Despite the urgings of his own cabinet, Lincoln refused to sign a peace treaty, as to do so, he felt, would legitimize the Confederacy. While neither side was willing to be the one to fire the first shot, Lincoln very deliberately closed the possibility of peaceful negotiation.
South offers deal. Lincoln refuses. That's not ending peaceful negotiation that's rejecting what he saw as unrealistic and asinine demands. Negotiations continued all the way until Fort Sumter was fired on.
Um, The Supreme Court ruled no such thing until after the war was over, and many view the ruling to this day to be more about legitimizing the war ex post facto then anything to do with the legal realities of the time.
There's no need to legitimize what was from the start a legitimate war. Protecting territorial sovereignty is the definition of a war of self defense. If the South sought to illegitimately break off from the sovereign authority of the United States, the United States is justified under any basic understanding of Just War to force their compliance.
BaronIveagh wrote: The diary of William McCarter (published, available for purchase), the papers of the Landis brothers of Lancaster PA (publication forthcoming, originals in the library of Congress), the papers of Senator Daniel Sturgeon from PA, take your pick the debates that surrounded the sixteenth and seventeenth amendments...
Cheers.
No, it can be a lot more subtle than that. What you're describing is the brute force approach to brainwashing that the government tried at Carlyle. The result was a staggering number of dead and damaged children. You say 'well, they can go read the truth, somewhere.' First, how many school students do you know that are going to go to the library and pick up a history book. Second...
Yeah, brainwashing can be more subtle. But 'read chapter 3 about how America is awesome and won WWII there'll be a test on Friday' is not brainwashing.
That we can sit here discussing this without anything freaking out and smashing their head against a wall to protect their conditioning tells you that no-one here is brainwashed.
And seriously, mentioning the Caryle thing... you're sounding like a nut.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: Virginia would be in, save for the godawful counties around DC.
"Would be" is for losers.
And the point was the word 'hopefully'. Which carries a heavy 'hopeful' element that this actually happened. Which sounds a bit nutty, so I was looking for a comment from Ratbarf that he didn't actually want this to happen.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: Minnesota and Wisconsin are big losers in that list too. They have paid out way more than they have brought in.
Delaware is actually the biggest, which I'd forgotten about last time I looked up the list.
AustonT wrote: Of course, some one will need to tell me why these two concepts are mutually exclusive.
Yes, I will. Because they're not fething exclusive. fething feth feth feth feth.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote: It didn't really come up, I've just decided that response is what sebster gets when he quotes me out of context.
What? I wasn't quoting you out of context, I was agreeing with you.
You asked a rhetorical question about Scotland and Wales not being able to leave the union, and I added to the point saying that if there was a right to secede formally recognised then it wouldn't really be a country, but an alliance or a free economic zone, or something like that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ratbarf wrote: My fathers family has deep roots in Virginia. Got a decent number of relatives living there.
Oh, okay, I'm with you now. I read the word 'hopefully' in a totally different context.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: See thats a Yankee misnomer. It wasn't about slavery.
It was about rich people and slavery. The average Joe Blow didn't have slaves. The average Joe Blow couldn't legally buy his way out of the draft. On boths dies it was Rich man's war, Poor man's fight.
Slavery was broadly supported among the poorer, non-slave owning Southerners. This was because many of them believed they would one day become wealthy and own slaves. It was because it meant someone else was at the bottom of the totem pole - 'I might not be rich but I'm not a n*****'. And it was because there was considerable fear about what the slaves would do if they were released - many believed they would take vengeance on the white population.
In this sense the situation is much like South African apartheid. Very few white people benefitted directly from the cheap labour and easy access to natural resources allowed by the apartheid regime, but the regime as a whole was quite popular.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: In addition to slavery, I thought one of the biggest reason why the south wanted to fight was what they thought were unfair taxes/tariffs on the textile industry imposed by the "North"??
It was an issue, but it wasn't a primary issue in the way slavery was.
The major cause people don't talk about is how different society was in the South - a slave based agricultural society is entirely unlike the industrial North. The South was okay with being attached to the very different North... as long as it maintained a dominant position in Federal politics, but then Lincoln was elected without carrying a single state in the South. Add in the decades long debate over slavery and you have a region that feels it is entirely unlike the states to the North, no longer able to dictate Federal policy... and so the writing was on the wall for slavery, which was not only a key social institution but a key economic institution as well.
And so you get secession, and then war. Taxes were one of a range of minor issue to all that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheHammer wrote: You seem to miss his point completely. The very act of secession was violent. The South knew it, and that is why they struck when they did: they believed that secession was violent and the only way to guarantee its success was to do so on the battlefield. At a certain point you have to acknowledge the very act of secession is violence, especially when they were seceding to protect an inherently violent system.
Well, there is such a thing as peaceful secession. Hard to pull of in practice, but certainly possible.
Not that I think Seaward is even slightly right on this, mind you. Had the South wanted peace they could have delayed the call for secession until they reached an agreement for peaceful secession. Or they could have seceded, and stated that they want peace but will respond with force if attacked - when faced with Fort Sumter they could have allowed resupply while negotiating the removal of Union troops as part of a peaceful negotiation of secession.
If all that failed, as it likely would have, well then you still get war, but you could say the South did what it could to avoid it. But given what actually happened, any claim the South didn't want war is a nonsense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: So if the South had been allowed to secede, they would not have attacked the North anyway. Got it.
So, what exactly is the point of arguing 'if they us do everything we want then we wouldn't have started a fight'. I mean, sure, its true, but isn't the whole point how much you're willing to give up before taking the measure to go to war?
It's a bit like saying 'if the South had just stayed part of the Union there never would have been a war'. I mean, once again the point is that when push came to shove, for the North war was preferable to letting the South secede. Just like war was preferable to continuing to remain in the Union, even to continuing to remain in the Union while pushing for secession.
Actually it was very true. The real root causes were a combination of economics, modernization, southern and northern nationalism, and the marginalization of the South politically. Remember that Lincoln had won the election without even being on the ballot in 11 states.
First off, the south was not marginalized politically. Leading up the 1860 elections the Democratic party and the South in particular held a strangle hold of near absolute power in federal government. That tariff South Caronlina got up in arms about? The democratic controlled congresses of the 1840's pretty much destroyed it, reducing it by 1860 to essentially nothing. Northern steel industrialists had more to complain about over the tariff than southerners. The Fugitive Slave law was passed by a Democratic congress against objections by the North and was one of the most obvious triggers for the conflict. The South was not marginalized. If anything it marginalized the North.
Economics? The North made almost all its money in agriculture and so did the south. Both were self sufficient for food. The North exported grains and the south exported cotton, rice, and tobacco. Forgive me. I don't think the plant a farmer grows is going to drive him to war with his neighbor. The only differences between these two in this respect is slaves and their use in the South being larger than in the North.
Modernization is a false category as it ultimately stems back to economic interests. Northern and Southern economic interests supported each other. Southern luxury goods went to the north for common goods and vice versa. Northern shipping was vital to Southern trade and the Northern shipping needed southern goods to trade. This isn't a system that fosters conflict it fosters cooperation. The states benefited much more from working together than from separating (and industrialists in the 1850's and 1860's were saying this very loudly as tensions rouse). What industry grew stronger in the north, like steel working, was a direct result of labor practices. Steel working requires skilled labor. Its not something a capitalist wants a slave doing.
There was only 1 truly significant difference between the North and the South. The widespread use and ownership of slaves. Every method of analysis ultimately stems back to slavery as a root cause of difference. And even then there are very few differences to be pointed out. Nothing significant enough to suggest the North and South should be fighting.
In the end, slavery was just a pretext for a war a long time in coming.
I've heard this theory before and its crap and always will be crap. Everything about the Civil War's origins is entrenched in slavery. The ongoing conflict between free soilers and slave owners is at the very heart of why it happened. The average southerner did not have a significantly different life from the average northerner. The elites of both regions had near identical interests baring slavery.
It really is about slavery. How the myth that it isn't and that the North and South were somehow widely different creatures has continued to persist baffles me. I blame Charles Beard. Damn fool should have kept his mouth shut.
One of the very first acts of the Confederate government was to offer the North a peace treaty and mutual defense agreement where in the South offered to purchase all the Federal lands in the South. Despite the urgings of his own cabinet, Lincoln refused to sign a peace treaty, as to do so, he felt, would legitimize the Confederacy. While neither side was willing to be the one to fire the first shot, Lincoln very deliberately closed the possibility of peaceful negotiation.
South offers deal. Lincoln refuses. That's not ending peaceful negotiation that's rejecting what he saw as unrealistic and asinine demands. Negotiations continued all the way until Fort Sumter was fired on.
Um, The Supreme Court ruled no such thing until after the war was over, and many view the ruling to this day to be more about legitimizing the war ex post facto then anything to do with the legal realities of the time.
There's no need to legitimize what was from the start a legitimate war. Protecting territorial sovereignty is the definition of a war of self defense. If the South sought to illegitimately break off from the sovereign authority of the United States, the United States is justified under any basic understanding of Just War to force their compliance.
So lets say it was about slavery? Does that make any difference as to the fact that it was Northern Aggression? And I'll respond to your "Secession is violence." With the response that "Abolition is theft." They would have abolished slavery and likely offered no compensation for would have essentially been a massive confiscation of property. Property that, at the time of purchase, had been legally obtained and paid for. Owning a slave was more expensive than owning a car is today iirc, if a President stated that he was going to confiscate every truck in america, and the North voted him in while the south didn't, there would be another attempt at secession because the impact is huge. All of those truck related businesses would be out of business, or would have to foot the bill for an overhaul of their entire truck fleet. So now their back's up against the wall the same as if you said you wanted to steal everything they own, because you're taking their livelihood from them. So they fight.
Plus, yes, the South took Fort Sumter, but it was in the South, that's like Ottawa declaring war on Quebec (if Quebec actually did manage to seperate) because Ottawa wanted to keep the Citadel and Quebec considered it theirs, because, you know, it's in Quebec.
AustonT wrote: It didn't really come up, I've just decided that response is what sebster gets when he quotes me out of context.
What? I wasn't quoting you out of context, I was agreeing with you.
You asked a rhetorical question about Scotland and Wales not being able to leave the union, and I added to the point saying that if there was a right to secede formally recognised then it wouldn't really be a country, but an alliance or a free economic zone, or something like that.
First off, the south was not marginalized politically. Leading up the 1860 elections the Democratic party and the South in particular held a strangle hold of near absolute power in federal government. That tariff South Caronlina got up in arms about? The democratic controlled congresses of the 1840's pretty much destroyed it, reducing it by 1860 to essentially nothing. Northern steel industrialists had more to complain about over the tariff than southerners. The Fugitive Slave law was passed by a Democratic congress against objections by the North and was one of the most obvious triggers for the conflict. The South was not marginalized. If anything it marginalized the North.
You really want to go there? Fine: In 1859 New York had 33 seats in the House. Alabama had 7. Pennsylvania had 25 seats. Louisiana had 4. Connecticut also had 4 seats. Texas had 2, the same Rhode Island. Ohio had 21 seats. Virginia had 11. Notice a trend? (note that, at the time, Senators were not directly elected.)
For having a stranglehold, the Democrats did not have a majority in the House for about half the 1850's.
The Tariffs in question were not reduced in the 1840's, they were reduced ten years earlier under Jackson, though they were, indeed, under a Democrat controlled Congress. The reduction to War of 1812 levels was proposed in the House Ways and Means committee as a compromise, which was deemed acceptable.
Economics? The North made almost all its money in agriculture and so did the south. Both were self sufficient for food. The North exported grains and the south exported cotton, rice, and tobacco. Forgive me. I don't think the plant a farmer grows is going to drive him to war with his neighbor. The only differences between these two in this respect is slaves and their use in the South being larger than in the North.
Really? Mining over a million short tons of Coal per annum by 1840 (which quadrupled again by 1850) must have been a hallucination. Never mind all those mills, they're a mirage.
It really is about slavery. How the myth that it isn't and that the North and South were somehow widely different creatures has continued to persist baffles me. I blame Charles Beard. Damn fool should have kept his mouth shut.
And all those diarists and soldiers writing letters home too. They should really have kept their mouths shut about how different things were down South, and how strange things seemed to them. (Poor Allen Landis couldn't even understand what his prisoner was saying.)
South offers deal. Lincoln refuses. That's not ending peaceful negotiation that's rejecting what he saw as unrealistic and asinine demands. Negotiations continued all the way until Fort Sumter was fired on.
Yes, but without Lincoln. Lincoln refused to even read it, or meet face to face with the negotiators. Meanwhile, Seward worked through a third party and pumped them full of disinformation about how Lincoln had no intention of coercing the secessionists by force of arms for a month.
LordofHats wrote: Protecting territorial sovereignty is the definition of a war of self defense.
Unless it's against a rebellion within those territories and then it's a war of suppression.
In the end, slavery was just a pretext for a war a long time in coming.
I've heard this theory before and its crap and always will be crap. Everything about the Civil War's origins is entrenched in slavery. The ongoing conflict between free soilers and slave owners is at the very heart of why it happened. The average southerner did not have a significantly different life from the average northerner. The elites of both regions had near identical interests baring slavery.
It really is about slavery. How the myth that it isn't and that the North and South were somehow widely different creatures has continued to persist baffles me. I blame Charles Beard. Damn fool should have kept his mouth shut.
One of the very first acts of the Confederate government was to offer the North a peace treaty and mutual defense agreement where in the South offered to purchase all the Federal lands in the South. Despite the urgings of his own cabinet, Lincoln refused to sign a peace treaty, as to do so, he felt, would legitimize the Confederacy. While neither side was willing to be the one to fire the first shot, Lincoln very deliberately closed the possibility of peaceful negotiation.
South offers deal. Lincoln refuses. That's not ending peaceful negotiation that's rejecting what he saw as unrealistic and asinine demands. Negotiations continued all the way until Fort Sumter was fired on.
1. I've heard that Civil War is the rise of the Republican as a one of the two dominating political factions in the US. and Lincoln had been seen by southern politicians with contempts before the war broke out.
2. Before the war broke out. Did most of the southern (slave-owning) polulations really share the same view as a handful of politicians there? Other says that Southern cotton planters were ready for the change. to hire cheap 'freemen' labour instead of buying imported slaves in a 'bidding' price. Others also said they accepts such changes with much slower stage of transition but not an instant ones. some others says they're reasonable folks and not as ignorant as some versions of history books said about them. http://hawkdawg.com/rrt/rrt3/hm/HM_Chapter_14.htm How accurate is this fiction said about pre-war years of american politics? one might say that the politicians of the southern states did indeed makes war. Did the 'ultra-conservatives' being so strong in the souths to the points of screening out any less-hostile candicates?
Testify wrote: The same amount of money spread out differently won't increase demand. In that day and age the spending habbits of poor whites and poor blacks would not have been radically different. It's not like poor white people were investing all their money in property.
New money is created. That is how fiat currency works. That is why the USA today has millions more people with millions more dollars than in 1860, despite having freed the slaves and brought in lots of other low paid immigrants, and so on.
Conversely, countries with demographic timebombs, such as Japan, are desperate to solve the problem of a shrinking economy. They know it won't make them all rich, but poor.
Actually it was very true. The real root causes were a combination of economics, modernization, southern and northern nationalism, and the marginalization of the South politically. Remember that Lincoln had won the election without even being on the ballot in 11 states.
First off, the south was not marginalized politically. Leading up the 1860 elections the Democratic party and the South in particular held a strangle hold of near absolute power in federal government. That tariff South Caronlina got up in arms about? The democratic controlled congresses of the 1840's pretty much destroyed it, reducing it by 1860 to essentially nothing. Northern steel industrialists had more to complain about over the tariff than southerners. The Fugitive Slave law was passed by a Democratic congress against objections by the North and was one of the most obvious triggers for the conflict. The South was not marginalized. If anything it marginalized the North.
Economics? The North made almost all its money in agriculture and so did the south. Both were self sufficient for food. The North exported grains and the south exported cotton, rice, and tobacco. Forgive me. I don't think the plant a farmer grows is going to drive him to war with his neighbor. The only differences between these two in this respect is slaves and their use in the South being larger than in the North.
Modernization is a false category as it ultimately stems back to economic interests. Northern and Southern economic interests supported each other. Southern luxury goods went to the north for common goods and vice versa. Northern shipping was vital to Southern trade and the Northern shipping needed southern goods to trade. This isn't a system that fosters conflict it fosters cooperation. The states benefited much more from working together than from separating (and industrialists in the 1850's and 1860's were saying this very loudly as tensions rouse). What industry grew stronger in the north, like steel working, was a direct result of labor practices. Steel working requires skilled labor. Its not something a capitalist wants a slave doing.
There was only 1 truly significant difference between the North and the South. The widespread use and ownership of slaves. Every method of analysis ultimately stems back to slavery as a root cause of difference. And even then there are very few differences to be pointed out. Nothing significant enough to suggest the North and South should be fighting.
In the end, slavery was just a pretext for a war a long time in coming.
I've heard this theory before and its crap and always will be crap. Everything about the Civil War's origins is entrenched in slavery. The ongoing conflict between free soilers and slave owners is at the very heart of why it happened. The average southerner did not have a significantly different life from the average northerner. The elites of both regions had near identical interests baring slavery.
It really is about slavery. How the myth that it isn't and that the North and South were somehow widely different creatures has continued to persist baffles me. I blame Charles Beard. Damn fool should have kept his mouth shut.
One of the very first acts of the Confederate government was to offer the North a peace treaty and mutual defense agreement where in the South offered to purchase all the Federal lands in the South. Despite the urgings of his own cabinet, Lincoln refused to sign a peace treaty, as to do so, he felt, would legitimize the Confederacy. While neither side was willing to be the one to fire the first shot, Lincoln very deliberately closed the possibility of peaceful negotiation.
South offers deal. Lincoln refuses. That's not ending peaceful negotiation that's rejecting what he saw as unrealistic and asinine demands. Negotiations continued all the way until Fort Sumter was fired on.
Um, The Supreme Court ruled no such thing until after the war was over, and many view the ruling to this day to be more about legitimizing the war ex post facto then anything to do with the legal realities of the time.
There's no need to legitimize what was from the start a legitimate war. Protecting territorial sovereignty is the definition of a war of self defense. If the South sought to illegitimately break off from the sovereign authority of the United States, the United States is justified under any basic understanding of Just War to force their compliance.
So lets say it was about slavery? Does that make any difference as to the fact that it was Northern Aggression? And I'll respond to your "Secession is violence." With the response that "Abolition is theft." They would have abolished slavery and likely offered no compensation for would have essentially been a massive confiscation of property. Property that, at the time of purchase, had been legally obtained and paid for. Owning a slave was more expensive than owning a car is today iirc, if a President stated that he was going to confiscate every truck in america, and the North voted him in while the south didn't, there would be another attempt at secession because the impact is huge. All of those truck related businesses would be out of business, or would have to foot the bill for an overhaul of their entire truck fleet. So now their back's up against the wall the same as if you said you wanted to steal everything they own, because you're taking their livelihood from them. So they fight.
Plus, yes, the South took Fort Sumter, but it was in the South, that's like Ottawa declaring war on Quebec (if Quebec actually did manage to seperate) because Ottawa wanted to keep the Citadel and Quebec considered it theirs, because, you know, it's in Quebec.
Ratbarf wrote:So lets say it was about slavery? Does that make any difference as to the fact that it was Northern Aggression?
If secession is illegitimate its very execution is aggressive. I never said secession is violent. That was another poster. Not all aggressive acts or acts of war are inherently violent. Northern Aggression is just some stupid term southerns use today to make it seem like the war wasn't their fault.
Truth: There would have been no war without Southern Secession. The South forced the war. Calling it Northern Aggression is absurdist.
They would have abolished slavery and likely offered no compensation for would have essentially been a massive confiscation of property.
Wow. Idiotic slave owning elites in the South had a paranoid delusion that the North was going to steal all their slaves and you actually support that? Had the South not seceded slavery as an institution would have probably continued in the United States for as much as a century! The Civil War ended slavery because the South forced the Norths hand by taking an extreme response to losing their stranglehold on federal power.
if a President stated that he was going to confiscate every truck in america, and the North voted him in while the south didn't, there would be another attempt at secession because the impact is huge.
Your being really really obtuse right now. Lincoln never supported Abolition. The South just had a delusion that he did.
So they fight.
Being 250 years in the future we have the benefit of knowing the South's fears were completely baseless.
Plus, yes, the South took Fort Sumter, but it was in the South,
If it is the federal governments position that a state cannot secede then no. Fort Sumter was federal land within the state of South Carolina which had engaged in open rebellion against its legitimate authority.
BaronIveagh wrote:You really want to go there? Fine: In 1859 New York had 33 seats in the House. Alabama had 7. Pennsylvania had 25 seats. Louisiana had 4. Connecticut also had 4 seats. Texas had 2, the same Rhode Island. Ohio had 21 seats. Virginia had 11. Notice a trend? (note that, at the time, Senators were not directly elected.)
Oh that is adorable. You assume that because Northern States had more seats that they marginalized the South? Aren't you cute.
Yes. I will go there. Here's a break down for you:
Senate
Year: Democrats/Whigs/Republicans/Other (Bolded for the Years Democrats had a Democratic President in office)
1839: 33/19/0/0 1841: 22/29/0/0
1843: 22/26/0/1
1845: 26/24/0/1 1847: 31/24/0/1 1849: 36/23/0/1 1851: 33/22/0/4
1853: 33/32/0/4
1855: 34/25 (This is the odd congress. The only known case of a Coalition Government in US history)
1857: 59/0/21/2 1859: 25/0/22/19
From 1845 onwards the Democratic party ruled the Senate, the most important gear in the legislative process at the time. The Whigs even when they still existed were to divided along regional lines to strongly oppose the Democratic party from 1847 onwards. A Democrat was president for all but 4 of these Congresses.
House
1839: 124/109/0/8 1841: 97/142/0/2
1843: 147/72/0/3
1845: 141/78/0/12 1847: 107/116/0/2 1849: 113/107/0/10 1851: 128/85/0/20 (What was that about the Democrats never having a House Majority in the 1850's?)
1853: 158/86/0/5[/b]
1855: 79/103/51 1857: 114/0/105/15 1859: 82/0/103/38
Of the 12 Congress' that preceded the war only 4 did not see more Democrats seated in the House than any other party and one of those Congress' was the congress of 1859 (the 36th). And for the later years of 1850's the opposition was too disorganized to oppose them. Those same years saw a Democratic president in office and Democratic control of the Senate. Buchanan may be from Pennsylvania but he was a Democrat. He even got nominated because he so closely towed the Party line and was pro-South (you couldn't get a Democratic presidential nomination without being pro-South).
Also: he Walker Tariff was a modified version of the Compromise Tariff of 1833 making it essentially meaningless and hurting industrialist interests in the United States particularly early textiles. Oh and yes. The Walker Tariff was passed in 1846. The Compromise Tariff was essentially black mailed onto the federal government by the Southern States but they still thought it was too high, especially after a boched attempt to get rid of it in 1843 backfired.
EDIT: The big problem for the Whigs, and the reason they dissolved, is that they were too divided along regional interests. They were nationally organized but many Whigs shared political positions with Democrats on numerous issues, especially in the border states of Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. The Democrats could always rely on these Whigs siding with them on a lot of issues (and the constant threat of disunion was commonly used to blackmail others into capitulating to Southern demands).
For having a stranglehold, the Democrats did not have a majority in the House for about half the 1850's.
They didn't need one. Without a defined opposition party the Democrats held the most seats of any individual group and could do as they pleased. Stating the the Coalition opposition of 1855, the Democrats lost majority in the House but maintained it in the Senate and the Presidency making them more than able to do as they pleased since the Coalition was not effectively organized against them. Not surprising since the Coalition was made up of the American Party, the Know Nothings, early Republicans, remaining Whigs, and a bunch of independents. Even after the Republicans concretely formed and began taking seats it took until at least 1858 or 1859 for the party to truly organize.
When the Whigs collapses the Democrats were the ONLY nationally organized political party in the United States until the rise of the Republicans in 1858 and 1859. The Democrats were elected in the North and the South but federally supported Southern political ends and continued to do so all the way into the late 19th century. If you are truly incapable of even grasping this basic historical truth I suppose we'll just have to let you keep living your fantasy of how the North was oh so mean to the South.
Really? Mining over a million short tons of Coal per annum by 1840 (which quadrupled again by 1850) must have been a hallucination. Never mind all those mills, they're a mirage.
Pennsylvania's booming coal industry defines the entire North as superior to the South? Alabama and Virginia (later West Virginia) also had coal mining. Unfortunately their mines were deep in the interior and not geographically located near water ways.
Oh the textile mills? The ones using southern cotton? Yeah. The South was totally hosed by that industry. Also: The number one state for textile production in the United States from 1840 to 1860. Massechuttes of course. Number 2? Georgia. The number of textiles mills in Georgia in 1843 was thirteen. In 1849 there were thirty-three. Georgia's textile industry was so successful in growing that in 1855 it collapsed under its own weight when prices sharply dropped because they flooded the market and cotton prices rose.
Sure the North started to really over take the South by the mid 1850's and you want to know why? After Georgia's industry destroyed itself, the mills in New England were the only game in town. When capitalists tried to restart it in the South they had to problems. Land cost too much, and the South didn't have enough free labor. Yeah. It goes back to slavery. Shocker. Of course this was not a problem in Virginia, or North Carolina where there was an abundance of free labor. Investors had already started funding to facilitate the industry in these two states when tensions exploded.
EDIT: The Iron and Steel industry also suffered greatly because of the Democrats reduction of the tariff intended to protect them. No one in Europe wanted US iron as it was deemed lower in quality (and frankly it was). Without the tariff foreign iron was cheaper so the industry couldn't grow and in the mid-50's suffered a huge set back when iron flooded the market and prices dropped sharply. A case of Southern political interests hosing the North (mostly Pennsylvania).
The ultimate flaw though in the industry argument is this. If the North was so vastly more capable than the South, why then were the majority of arms and munitions used by the North in the Civil War imported from Britain. US industry prior to the Civil War was not strong in either the North or the South. It was weak before the war making up less than 10% of the national economy. You really want to argue that the United States was torn apart and embroiled in a 6 year war over 10% of the economy?
The war actually facilitated the massive northern boom that pushed the United States fully into the Industrial Revolution. The war shut the South out of Industry.
The North only gained its initial lead due to geographic advantages that throughout the 1850's were becoming less important. Miles of railroad is a commonly cited figure used to suggest the North had this massive industrial capability that didn't exist. Its deceiving. The South had a vastly well built network of Canals. They didn't need the rail road and canals are not exactly the easiest thing to build.
Your flaw is that your using an argument produced by a Marxist historian from the 1920's who produced a horribly flawed narrative of US economic interests in the Antebellum period (his wife helped). Charles Beard's narrative was rejected by historians as inherently and fundamentally flawed in the mid 50's but for some reason people keep using the damn thing. It was an important step in Civil War scholarship because no one really talked about why the war happened until he came along and shook things up, but he was dead wrong.
LordofHats wrote: And all those diarists and soldiers writing letters home too. They should really have kept their mouths shut about how different things were down South, and how strange things seemed to them. (Poor Allen Landis couldn't even understand what his prisoner was saying.)
Oh yes, I love this argument. It was produced in the 1960's by a bunch of Southerners who cherry picked source material. There is a mountain of letters and diaries and guess what? Some people were shocked by how similar the South was and how it was nothing like what they thought! Just because Allen Landis is a famous story doesn't make his the only one. I go down to the Giant to get milk and the guy who stocks dairy is from Nigeria. I barely understand him at all. I'm not at war with him.
But no. Do go on. How very different were there? What differences other than those directly connected to slavery, could possibly be so great that the war had to happen?
LordofHats wrote: Yes, but without Lincoln. Lincoln refused to even read it, or meet face to face with the negotiators. Meanwhile, Seward worked through a third party and pumped them full of disinformation about how Lincoln had no intention of coercing the secessionists by force of arms for a month.
How is that disinformation? There's never been any reason to believe Lincoln wanted violence with the South. The incident with Fort Sumter is consider his greatest blunder because it eliminated any chance for peaceful reconciliation which he did want.
LordofHats wrote: Unless it's against a rebellion within those territories and then it's a war of suppression.
You're arguing semantics. No one in their right mind would ever propose that a (legitimate) state cannot legitimately suppress a rebellion.
Lone Cat wrote:
1. I've heard that Civil War is the rise of the Republican as a one of the two dominating political factions in the US. and Lincoln had been seen by southern politicians with contempts before the war broke out.
His election is why they seceded. Southern elites had this fear that if the Republicans came to power that they would abolish slavery. The fear was unjustified as this wasn't a goal of the early Republican party. The party was in line with Lincoln. Abolition wasn't their goal merely containment. However the South had developed a mentality that if Slavery wasn't to be allowed in the territories that it would soon be abolished.
The irony here is of course that without the Civil War, no emancipation proclamation and we'd have likely still had slavery well into the 20th century.
2. Before the war broke out. Did most of the southern (slave-owning) polulations really share the same view as a handful of politicians there? Other says that Southern cotton planters were ready for the change. to hire cheap 'freemen' labour instead of buying imported slaves in a 'bidding' price.
No they did not have the same view. Reference the story of Georgia's textile industry. Southern capitalists were realizing in the 1850's that the South was overly dependent on cash crops whose prices were unpredictable and unreliable. They wanted to diversify the Southern economy as the North had already started doing but slavery was an obstacle as slaves were just too expensive.* Unfortunately the men who were trying to convince others of this in the South were shut out when the war started and tensions completely polarized. Following the war, there was little interest in building industry in the South (thought ironically Georgia's textile industry did recover and by 1890 was the third leading state in textile production). By the close of the 19th century textiles had mostly shifted into the South.
*When the Slave trade was banned in 1828 the only way to get new slaves was good old human reproduction (smuggling did happen but we don't know the extent of it). However in a closed market prices rise sharply and the costs of slaves was getting so high that it was becoming a major hindering factor to Southern economic growth. However by the 1850's the South's GDP was roughly on par with that of the North. The major difference was in lower class Southern Whites who commonly were very very poor.
The ultimate flaw though in the industry argument is this. If the North was so vastly more capable than the South, why then were the majority of arms and munitions used by the North in the Civil War imported from Britain.
Considering that over 1 million M1861s and an additional 700,000 M1863s were produced by Springfield and it's 20 odd subcontractors, including Colt, vs around 500,000 imports for the British Enfield, how are you getting a 'majority' out of that?
Your flaw is that your using an argument produced by a Marxist historian from the 1920's who produced a horribly flawed narrative of US economic interests in the Antebellum period (his wife helped).
And yours is that you insult authors rather than actually post anything that actually disproves their work other than some airy references to unnamed authors in the 1950's.
Oh yes, I love this argument. It was produced in the 1960's by a bunch of Southerners who cherry picked source material. There is a mountain of letters and diaries and guess what? Some people were shocked by how similar the South was and how it was nothing like what they thought! Just because Allen Landis is a famous story doesn't make his the only one.
Really? What unit was Landis with? I know, because I've read his personal letters home, which have never been published. I'll add that in the original material I've gathered, most of the average soldiers writing home are pretty much in agreement. Granted, the sample was limited to men in a single Brigade from the New York and Pennsylvania area, but... you're going to tell me that over 200 men writing home had no fething idea what they were talking about?
If secession is illegitimate its very execution is aggressive. I never said secession is violent. That was another poster. Not all aggressive acts or acts of war are inherently violent. Northern Aggression is just some stupid term southerns use today to make it seem like the war wasn't their fault.
Truth: There would have been no war without Southern Secession. The South forced the war. Calling it Northern Aggression is absurdist.
But it was a legitimate secession, the forming of a central government from individual states is a delegation of authority given to a foreign power by it's people. If said people later decide to no longer delegate their authority to that foreign state it is their choice to do so, for it is their authority. Would you classify the United States as an illegitimate state? It seceded from Britain by choosing to take back its delegated authority.
Also, who invaded whom? The South prior to general invasion by the North only took aggressive action against those areas which were within its borders, and only later invaded the North in an attempt to force the capitulation of the government that had chosen to inaugurate said war.
See, Ratbarf, this is where everything you're talking about falls apart.
The Colonies rebelled because they were not being represented by a legitimate government. If your government is illegitimate, which I'm sure we can all agree the British crown was because of that whole "taxation without representation" thing, than secession becomes a legitimate form of political action.
If you actively participate in the democratic process, which is a great way of giving it legitimacy, and then become unhappy with the results and choose to secede that it is not legitimate.
Had the South decided that the democratic process was no longer legitimate and chose not to participate in a form of government it viewed as a sham than maybe you might have a valid point. Instead they participated, and gave legitimacy, to a government up until they decided to take their ball and go home like children who just wanted to continue the very evil cause of slavery.
All this other bs that the Civil War was started because of something other than slavery, and that the South had legitimate secession is just awful.
The Colonies rebelled because they were not being represented by a legitimate government. If your government is illegitimate, which I'm sure we can all agree the British crown was because of that whole "taxation without representation" thing, than secession becomes a legitimate form of political action.
Um...No, actually. There have been quite a few governments over the millennia who were quite legitimate and taxed without representation for the common man.
At the end, the only real determination of if a government is legitimate is 'We Won.'
Ex post facto, you can claim all the moral BS you like, history is, after all, written by the victors, but in the end, the only real measure of a government's legitimacy is survival.
After all, in the Civil War, the side that committed the most crimes against humanity won, and then claimed the moral high ground under the banner of it being a 'war on slavery'.
The Colonies rebelled because they were not being represented by a legitimate government.
Actually under your definition it was a legitimate government, it was a government to whom they had sworn loyalty and fealty, in many cases explicitly, you can't get much more legitimate than that.
BaronIveagh wrote: Considering that over 1 million M1861s and an additional 700,000 M1863s were produced by Springfield and it's 20 odd subcontractors, including Colt, vs around 500,000 imports for the British Enfield, how are you getting a 'majority' out of that?
I know because I've seen the Springfield Armoy's production records maintained by the Ordnance Department. I've also seen James Ripley's personal correspondence compelling the Union to purchase foreign arms because domestic producers couldn't make enough weapons and ammo.
It is interesting though that you think the M1863 was a different rifle and that the Civil War lasted until 1872 when the Springfield armory ceased producing the M1861 and all its variants having only produced a grand total of ~1,050,000 arms for the entire decade. Only 700,000 Springfield rifles were produced period during the Civil War. Over a million arms were purchased from the British including the knock off Enfields. They also used over 300,000 of the Austrian Lorenz rifle between the two sides.
This isn't even going into ammo.
And no rebuttal for anything about the economics and industry of the North and South? Nothing about Congress? Nothing at all? Interesting.
And yours is that you insult authors rather than actually post anything that actually disproves their work other than some airy references to unnamed authors in the 1950's.
I'm willing to bet you've never even heard of Charles Beard and don't even know anything about the history of your own argument. There's too much to the Progressive interpretation of the war for me to bother going through explaining it to someone who probably doesn't care.
The most important author on the war in the 50's and 60's is Kenneth Stampp but I doubt you know who he is either.
EDIT: And Marxist isn't an insult. But I'm not shocked you don't know what a Marxist Historian is.
Really? What unit was Landis with? I know, because I've read his personal letters home, which have never been published. I'll add that in the original material I've gathered, most of the average soldiers writing home are pretty much in agreement. Granted, the sample was limited to men in a single Brigade from the New York and Pennsylvania area, but... you're going to tell me that over 200 men writing home had no fething idea what they were talking about?
Congrats on your super secret. I've also read letters from the war at the Army Hertiage Center, and I had access to ones from a hell of a lot more than just 1 unit.
Of course that's not even a real answer. Please. Tell us how so radically different the North and South were culturally. Go on.
At the end, the only real determination of if a government is legitimate is 'We Won.'
Michael Walzer would like to have a word with you.
Yes because I am sick and tired of this crap getting posted by people who probably just read some random website and otherwise have absolutely no knowledge about what their talking about.
If someone doesn't know who Charles Beard, Kenneth Stampp, or Eric Foner are they should probably just stop spewing this 'It wasn't about slavery' crap. At least McPhearson can shape an argument about the Civil War that makes a lick of sense when he goes off about economics and industry. Historians have been writing about this for too damned long for people to keep acting like Beard was the final word in the origins of the war when they've never even heard his name.
If I have to be hipster to end this crap so be it. I'm not a Civil War buff I don't even care about the Civil War. I just hate all this make believe fantasy coming from people who've probably never read a single scholarly text on the war because even the most basic ones will tell them their wrong. Even James McPhearson, the champion of economic and cultural explanations about the wars origins' adds a foot note to most of his work that basically amounts to "but it was kind of about slavery."
LordofHats wrote: Yes because I am sick and tired of this crap getting posted by people who probably just read some random website and otherwise have absolutely no knowledge about what their talking about.
If someone doesn't know who Charles Beard, Kenneth Stampp, or Eric Foner are they should probably just stop spewing this 'It wasn't about slavery' crap. At least McPhearson can shape an argument about the Civil War that makes a lick of sense when he goes off about economics and industry. Historians have been writing about this for too damned long for people to keep acting like Beard was the final word in the origins of the war when they've never even heard his name.
If I have to be hipster to end this crap so be it. I'm not a Civil War buff I don't even care about the Civil War. I just hate all this make believe fantasy coming from people who've probably never read a single scholarly text on the war because even the most basic ones will tell them their wrong. Even James McPhearson, the champion of economic and cultural explanations about the wars origins' adds a foot note to most of his work that basically amounts to "but it was kind of about slavery."
Ratbarf wrote: So lets say it was about slavery? Does that make any difference as to the fact that it was Northern Aggression?
When the South fired the first shots that just makes no damn sense at all.
And I'll respond to your "Secession is violence." With the response that "Abolition is theft." They would have abolished slavery and likely offered no compensation for would have essentially been a massive confiscation of property. Property that, at the time of purchase, had been legally obtained and paid for.
You know, somehow I've never been able to really feel very sorry for the lack of compensation offered for the loss of 'property' that is actually living, breathing human beings.
Owning a slave was more expensive than owning a car is today iirc, if a President stated that he was going to confiscate every truck in america,...
Outside of the world of the Transformers, a truck doesn't have a mind of its own. Which makes this extremely stupid.
Plus, yes, the South took Fort Sumter, but it was in the South, that's like Ottawa declaring war on Quebec (if Quebec actually did manage to seperate) because Ottawa wanted to keep the Citadel and Quebec considered it theirs, because, you know, it's in Quebec.
The fort wasn't impeding shipping in Charleston harbour. When attacked, the Fort fell within a day, and so it presented no serious threat to shutting down the harbour. If there was any real political desire in the South to avoid the war, they could have continued to negotiate for surrender of the fort as part of settlement on secession. But instead they attacked.
Then they lost, and pissed and moaned about the War of Northern Aggression. What a bunch of losing whingers.
Man up. Take it on the chin. You picked a fight with someone bigger, gave it a good shake, but got beat.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote: I might have scanned it with a mildly biased eye.
Fair enough. I've done the same myself more than once.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ratbarf wrote: But it was a legitimate secession, the forming of a central government from individual states is a delegation of authority given to a foreign power by it's people. If said people later decide to no longer delegate their authority to that foreign state it is their choice to do so, for it is their authority. Would you classify the United States as an illegitimate state? It seceded from Britain by choosing to take back its delegated authority.
Also, who invaded whom? The South prior to general invasion by the North only took aggressive action against those areas which were within its borders, and only later invaded the North in an attempt to force the capitulation of the government that had chosen to inaugurate said war.
When a state declares it is seceding and attacks a Federal fort, what in the feth do you think is going to happen?
I mean, its like I'm in a street gang, and I tell the boss I'm leaving and then I slap him. When I wake from my coma I start moaning to everyone, saying that apart from a couple of times when managed to get some hits in the gang boss was doing all the punching. And so he was the aggressor and it's all not fair.
I mean seriously, you want to avoid a fight, don't fire cannons at a Federal fort. If you do fire at a Federal fort, well then you've got a war on your hands, and from there if you don't manage to win then you man the feth up and admit you started it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote: At the end, the only real determination of if a government is legitimate is 'We Won.'
Okay, see what you're doing there is thinking up something that sounds nice in your head, but basically all it shows is that you've never spend a second studying what political legitimacy actually means.
Legitimacy is actually the idea that entirely outside of force, there exists a consent of the people to be governed by the government of the day, and that for many reasons that legitmacy can go away. So for instance, in a feudal state a monarch might be a legitimate government, as the people believe him to be legitimate through various cultural, philosophical and religious ideas (mandate from heaven, for instance). However, that same nation, a few hundred years later, might no longer find their monarch legitimate, as the people have become more educated and more politically aware, and now believe they deserve a say in how they are governed.
This change occurs without any change in the military power of the government and the people.
The idea that legitimacy is dictated by power is actually the exact opposite of what legitimate means. Indeed, if power were dicated entirely by power then we wouldn't have the concept 'legitimacy'.
After all, in the Civil War, the side that committed the most crimes against humanity won, and then claimed the moral high ground under the banner of it being a 'war on slavery'.
Ah, the old trick of pointing out the North did bad things, and weren't really motivated by the cause of ending slavery, and therefore the South were the victims.
Except all you're really doing is playing a neat little trick, and pretending the two sides in the engagement must have opposite motivations. The South was concerned, as the North grew in power politically, and as abolition movement became increasing powerful, that sooner or later the North would ban slavery in United States. And so they seceded. The North, in response, fought to preserve the Union.
And hundreds of years later people play silly little political tricks to pretend the South wasn't motivated to protect the key industry in their region.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: If I have to be hipster to end this crap so be it. I'm not a Civil War buff I don't even care about the Civil War.
Not at all. What you are is a guy arguing from a very strong position of knowledge on the subject.
I've enjoyed reading your posts, and learned a lot from it.
I mean, its like I'm in a street gang, and I tell the boss I'm leaving and then I slap him. When I wake from my coma I start moaning to everyone, saying that apart from a couple of times when managed to get some hits in the gang boss was doing all the punching. And so he was the aggressor and it's all not fair.
To use your analogy I would have to point out it would be more like the leader of the Gang left some weed at your house and so you phoned him up a bunch of times telling him to come and pick up his stuff and if he doesn't you're going to smoke it, then you do, and proceeds to beat the living crap out of you.
Secondly, hopefully government would be slightly more civilized than a street gang?
Plus, secession is more like a divorce, and the South, again, tells the North to come pick up it's crap and leave, and then when the North doesn't the South throws the North's crap on the street, after which the North decides to burn the South's house down.
I sat down and tried to rebut each point of your various assertions, and created the sort of wall of text the mods made me promise never to create again. So...
Buy my book when it comes out. You'll enjoy it.
Ratbarf wrote: To use your analogy I would have to point out it would be more like the leader of the Gang left some weed at your house and so you phoned him up a bunch of times telling him to come and pick up his stuff and if he doesn't you're going to smoke it, then you do, and proceeds to beat the living crap out of you.
You didn't smoke his weed. You shot cannons at his fort. Your analogy uses a non violent metaphor to hide from the plain and simple fething reality that opening fire on a fort is an act of violence.
Secondly, hopefully government would be slightly more civilized than a street gang?
Of course. That's why there was meetings and discussions and a whole bunch of elections and everything. All the stuff you expect of civilised societies... until the South started shooting cannons.
Plus, secession is more like a divorce, and the South, again, tells the North to come pick up it's crap and leave, and then when the North doesn't the South throws the North's crap on the street, after which the North decides to burn the South's house down.
No, they didn't throw their crap out. They opened fire with cannons. fething crap on a cracker, it shouldn't be that hard to follow.
It was, exactly like my first analogy, a slap. Didn't do meaningful damage, but was definitely the first act of violence, and something every sane person on the planet would expect to see leading to an escalation of violence.
Your suggestion of a divorce is a good example. And in the midst of arbitration, as everyone is debating if divorce should happen or if the differences can be reconciled, the South slapped the North. After a good fight the North got the upper hand, and then set about really showing the South what it was like to lose a war.
And then years later the South still goes on about how mean the North was, pretending that the North started it. Well if the South didn't want a war it should have stayed in arbitration and not slapped the North. But it did. So it should man up, admit it fethed up and get on with life.
George Saliba is a published professor of Middle Eastern history from Columbia. He's also a giant moron.
Grats on getting published. Hopefully you'll make some $$$ but if I had a dime for everyone who ever produced a book that was horrible wrong and touted it around as though it were anything but wrong I'd be a very rich man with many hats.
1. The cornerstones of the earliest Republicans mainly consisted of abolitionists. before the Republicans there were a failed "The Free Soil Party". they. however, presented a concepts that the slavery prevents 'social mobility' through the farmer's viewpoint. a slave owners, which consisted of a very few percentages of the 'southerners' are wealthy and they can make best of their wealths purchasing the most fertile plots of land as much as they can and then worked the land with a 'band of slaves' (by the 1850, most of slaves working in the plantations were all of the chattel systems. the only rights they had was the rights of the reproduction.. of course! a kid born unto an enslaved parents will automatically enslaved at birth, the burden ends only if
- his/her masters choses to free them
- his/her masters went bankrupt and is liquidated (this was unlikely! slave owners were also politicians and will do everything to keep their businesses running, they might even write the law to subsidy their businesses with state taxation levy from the less prestigious citizens.. for example)
- his/her masters broke a serious law and were either incarcenated or executed, later the government seized the property. (this happens only if the owners were found guilty of serious crimes such as murder (but then again. deathmatch duelling wasn't count amongs murder since it was it was viewed as a resolution to dispuites, rather than either crime or punishment, also only a citizen of the high social status can do it by then i think. and even if they indeed do a murder, in the days of robber barons they could buy their way out of trouble and acquitted), or high treason (also unlikely! slave owners are not only just wealthy, before 1860 they also content with the then-current codes of laws and lifestyles so no point to stage a rebellion, also to conspire with European empires against the federal government is out of question.)
The Free Soil movements believed that the Slavery is bad because it is not only inhibits social mobility (both of the slaves, and those free farmers who can't afford to bid for any), it also economically inefficient. they however articulated their anti-slavery on the grounds of economics development (in the newly annexed territories) rather than moral standards. and the articulations limited their manpower resources.
2. Also in the years leading to the Civil War. some abolitionists view the violence as an only answer to slavery problems. at least two cases suggested that.
- John Brown. tried to stage a 'slave revolts' in Harrisburg, too bad he did not have enough public support to keep his cause so his intended revolts fails, and he was publicly hanged. funny enough, troops that suppress his intended revolts in the 1860 fought for his cause in 1861
- The Beechers, a pair of 'hardcore' abolitionists siblings. while Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote The Uncle Tom's cabin. Henry Ward Beechers took the 'books' further. instead of just distributing the books/Holy Bible to Kansas folks, he trield to smuggle Sharps rifle to a group of abolitionists in Kansas. I only know that the slave problems will end in an armed conflict. but did he actually instigate the war?
were the two cases further proves the Southern politicians a legitimacy to break away from the Union?
3. It is said that in the final days of the Confederacy. southern folks staged series of revolts against the 'slave owining' governments. some state governors simply defected. it is said that garrisoning troops in many cities spent many shots either doing a firing squad or suppressing the citizen revolts, rather than figting the 'Yanks'. one might said that the Confederacy actually dissolved 'internally' they can't actually fund their war efforts and thus resulting in a high rate of inflation, and followed by a wave of desertions which ruines the efforts to stave off the sieges laid by the 'Yanks' correct?
George Saliba is a published professor of Middle Eastern history from Columbia. He's also a giant moron.
Grats on getting published. Hopefully you'll make some $$$ but if I had a dime for everyone who ever produced a book that was horrible wrong and touted it around as though it were anything but wrong I'd be a very rich man with many hats.
Sorry, reading that it sounds like you've met Bilby too.
Don't worry. I stuck to hard facts and leave the interpretation to the reader. Though I must admit that some of the letters I find hilarious. There's one from a lady of means in California (to her father, a Senator) about Union meetings and how the 'scourge of slavery will be done away with, and the traitors punished', and then she goes on to write: '...and our Chinaman is stomping around in the kitchen. He just purchased a new pair of boots now that we pay him one dollar a week, and is very proud of them.'
Somewhere, I think she may have missed the point...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lone Cat wrote: It is said that in the final days of the Confederacy. southern folks staged series of revolts against the 'slave owining' governments. some state governors simply defected. it is said that garrisoning troops in many cities spent many shots either doing a firing squad or suppressing the citizen revolts, rather than figting the 'Yanks'. one might said that the Confederacy actually dissolved 'internally' they can't actually fund their war efforts and thus resulting in a high rate of inflation, and followed by a wave of desertions which ruines the efforts to stave off the sieges laid by the 'Yanks' correct?
Depends on where they were. The North had reached the point of practicing 'total war' and Sherman made it clear he considered civilians a legitimate military target. Given the situation, civilians would be looking for someone to blame. Plantation owners and the government made for good targets.
And defecting made it less likely that the North would move on to simply exterminating the civilian populace.
BaronIveagh wrote:Don't worry. I stuck to hard facts and leave the interpretation to the reader. Though I must admit that some of the letters I find hilarious. There's one from a lady of means in California (to her father, a Senator) about Union meetings and how the 'scourge of slavery will be done away with, and the traitors punished', and then she goes on to write: '...and our Chinaman is stomping around in the kitchen. He just purchased a new pair of boots now that we pay him one dollar a week, and is very proud of them.'
Somewhere, I think she may have missed the point...
The entire country kind of ultimately missed the point I think Not much of a difference between slavery and post-war sharecropping.
Depends on where they were. The North had reached the point of practicing 'total war' and Sherman made it clear he considered civilians a legitimate military target. Given the situation, civilians would be looking for someone to blame. Plantation owners and the government made for good targets.
And defecting made it less likely that the North would move on to simply exterminating the civilian populace.
To add to this its also not entirely clear just how much support the Confederate government really had. Southerns certainly seemed willing to fight the North, but how much stock they put into the new government is up for debate.
Lone Cat wrote:1. The cornerstones of the earliest Republicans mainly consisted of abolitionists. before the Republicans there were a failed "The Free Soil Party". they. however, presented a concepts that the slavery prevents 'social mobility' through the farmer's viewpoint. a slave owners, which consisted of a very few percentages of the 'southerners' are wealthy and they can make best of their wealths purchasing the most fertile plots of land as much as they can and then worked the land with a 'band of slaves' ...
The Free Soil movements believed that the Slavery is bad because it is not only inhibits social mobility (both of the slaves, and those free farmers who can't afford to bid for any), it also economically inefficient. they however articulated their anti-slavery on the grounds of economics development (in the newly annexed territories) rather than moral standards. and the articulations limited their manpower resources.
Partially. The Free Soilers formed the bulk of early Republican support and political ideology. The Republican party ultimately formed up of politicians from the Whigs, Free Soiler Democrats (Democrats from the New England states mostly) and a hodge podge of American party, Know Nothings, and Free Soil party. 'Free Soil' refers to the desire of Northerns to give out land in the territories freely. This idea eventually became the Homestead Act.
What has gone unmentioned thus far in this thread are some of the stupid paranoid delusions the North had about the South. The biggest one and the primary one behind the Free Soiler movement was that rich slave owning plantation owners would buy up all the land in the territories and force free men out. This isn't something that could have happened as most slave owners weren't that rich. Most of their wealth was tied directly into the land they already owned and their slaves. Buying up swathes of land in the territories wasn't something they'd likely be able to do.
But yes. The Free Soil movement was not a moral opposition to slavery so much as personal one. Abolitionism didn't have that much support before the war. There were the Radical Republicans, a small group of Republicans who wanted to abolish slavery outright, but before the war they were few and had little support.
- John Brown. tried to stage a 'slave revolts' in Harrisburg, too bad he did not have enough public support to keep his cause so his intended revolts fails, and he was publicly hanged. funny enough, troops that suppress his intended revolts in the 1860 fought for his cause in 1861
Yep. History is full of that stuff
- The Beechers, a pair of 'hardcore' abolitionists siblings. while Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote The Uncle Tom's cabin. Henry Ward Beechers took the 'books' further. instead of just distributing the books/Holy Bible to Kansas folks, he trield to smuggle Sharps rifle to a group of abolitionists in Kansas. I only know that the slave problems will end in an armed conflict. but did he actually instigate the war?
The Civil War? Not really. He helped contribute to the conflict of Kansas' state hood called Bloody Kansas but I don't know if the weapons he acquired for that conflict were actually used. Bloody Kansas itself I don't really see as a cause of the Civil War so much as a early sign of what was coming. His sister's book however did ignite a wave of tensions between North and South.
one might said that the Confederacy actually dissolved 'internally' they can't actually fund their war efforts and thus resulting in a high rate of inflation, and followed by a wave of desertions which ruines the efforts to stave off the sieges laid by the 'Yanks' correct?
Yes. The Confederacy found itself in heavy debts because Northern blockades were crippling the Southern economy.
I don't know how severe desertion was. The thing about the Confederate Army is that there really wasn't one. One existed on paper, but effectively there was not organized command until very late in the war. The army had no unified goals other than 'win the war' and the leaders like Robert E. Lee, Braxton Bragg, and Edmund Kirby Smith were all fighting their own wars. They never had the concrete strategic organization of the Union army or the support network. Robert E. Lee seems to have maintained a great deal of order and discipline in his army, but I'm not sure how bad the situation got for others as the war drew to a close.
IMO I think internal dissolution would have been the Confederacy's state war or no war. In the 1850's cotton prices spiked as a result of warfare in the Middle East between Egypt, the Saudi's, and the Ottomans and generally the gradual dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. Egypt wasn't a major source of cotton but the conflict did cause cotton prices to spike. This hurt the British textile industry as well as the US industry. The British in turn advanced rapidly their cotton production in India. This ended up having drastic ramifications for the South after the War because Britain no longer depended as heavily on US cotton supplies (and US cotton was deemed inferior to Indian cotton). The Boll Weavil also had a population explosion in the late 19th century greatly damaging cotton crops in the US.
Both these events would have happened with or without the Civil War. The South's economy was going to collapse either way in the 1870's and 1880's. Would have been interesting to see their reaction to that.
And defecting made it less likely that the North would move on to simply exterminating the civilian populace.
Let me just jump in here and say that Texas now has over 100,000 signatures on their petition.
You must admit, if Texas closed its borders the US would look awful bad if it fired on its own citizens in order to keep its territory.
Just sayin.
You'd be surprised how successful Waffen SS vets have been at 'redeeming' the image of the SS. There's still people who insist the WSS didn't know anything about the Holocaust.
There is a rumor going around that the FBI is going through the petitions and revoking security clearances for anyone who signed the petition.
I hope so.
LordofHats wrote: You'd be surprised how successful Waffen SS vets have been at 'redeeming' the image of the SS. There's still people who insist the WSS didn't know anything about the Holocaust.
For that matter, there are still people who claim the Holocaust never happened. Including an economics professor at Northwestern University.
Frazzled wrote: There is a rumor going around that the FBI is going through the petitions and revoking security clearances for anyone who signed the petition.
I hope so.
Still holding on to mine sir! Ironic that I post in a thread about secession? Not at all? Ironic that I in no way support their hilarious shenanigans? Absolutely!
We both know stranger things have really happened. I can say from my own experiences that pissed off Texans do stupid things. (To this day my favorite is still 'What the hell is THAT?!!' and he really did look up.)
So, ultimately, it gets down to how many Texans are pissed off, and if they're each going to convince the minimum of three pals with no necks they all seem to have to go along with them.
BaronIveagh wrote: We both know stranger things have really happened. I can say from my own experiences that pissed off Texans do stupid things. (To this day my favorite is still 'What the hell is THAT?!!' and he really did look up.)
So, ultimately, it gets down to how many Texans are pissed off, and if they're each going to convince the minimum of three pals with no necks they all seem to have to go along with them.
People in general do stupid things. In the words of the Immortal Gregory House: "People are idiots."
But 100,000 don't make a revolution, especially not without some serious $$$ behind them. I see no such event being at all plausible within the next 50 years, and given the record of younger voters supporting Obama, we're likely looking at a primarily older demographic being behind these petitions. A demographic that won't be around much longer (no offense senior members ).
This isn't the first time secession petitions have popped up their head in the last eighty years and it won't be the last. People are idiots and this is just an idiotic thing that they do. I think the vast majority of Americans are too invested into the system to bail out. Even if we hit the fiscal cliff and taxes go up radically I just don't see this as a likely outcome. People will need the government more than ever in that situation.
Depends on where they were. The North had reached the point of practicing 'total war' and Sherman made it clear he considered civilians a legitimate military target. Given the situation, civilians would be looking for someone to blame. Plantation owners and the government made for good targets.
And defecting made it less likely that the North would move on to simply exterminating the civilian populace.
To add to this its also not entirely clear just how much support the Confederate government really had. Southerns certainly seemed willing to fight the North, but how much stock they put into the new government is up for debate.
Lone Cat wrote:1. The cornerstones of the earliest Republicans mainly consisted of abolitionists. before the Republicans there were a failed "The Free Soil Party". they. however, presented a concepts that the slavery prevents 'social mobility' through the farmer's viewpoint. a slave owners, which consisted of a very few percentages of the 'southerners' are wealthy and they can make best of their wealths purchasing the most fertile plots of land as much as they can and then worked the land with a 'band of slaves' ...
The Free Soil movements believed that the Slavery is bad because it is not only inhibits social mobility (both of the slaves, and those free farmers who can't afford to bid for any), it also economically inefficient. they however articulated their anti-slavery on the grounds of economics development (in the newly annexed territories) rather than moral standards. and the articulations limited their manpower resources.
Partially. The Free Soilers formed the bulk of early Republican support and political ideology. The Republican party ultimately formed up of politicians from the Whigs, Free Soiler Democrats (Democrats from the New England states mostly) and a hodge podge of American party, Know Nothings, and Free Soil party. 'Free Soil' refers to the desire of Northerns to give out land in the territories freely. This idea eventually became the Homestead Act.
What has gone unmentioned thus far in this thread are some of the stupid paranoid delusions the North had about the South. The biggest one and the primary one behind the Free Soiler movement was that rich slave owning plantation owners would buy up all the land in the territories and force free men out. This isn't something that could have happened as most slave owners weren't that rich. Most of their wealth was tied directly into the land they already owned and their slaves. Buying up swathes of land in the territories wasn't something they'd likely be able to do.
But yes. The Free Soil movement was not a moral opposition to slavery so much as personal one. Abolitionism didn't have that much support before the war. There were the Radical Republicans, a small group of Republicans who wanted to abolish slavery outright, but before the war they were few and had little support.
- John Brown. tried to stage a 'slave revolts' in Harrisburg, too bad he did not have enough public support to keep his cause so his intended revolts fails, and he was publicly hanged. funny enough, troops that suppress his intended revolts in the 1860 fought for his cause in 1861
Yep. History is full of that stuff
- The Beechers, a pair of 'hardcore' abolitionists siblings. while Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote The Uncle Tom's cabin. Henry Ward Beechers took the 'books' further. instead of just distributing the books/Holy Bible to Kansas folks, he trield to smuggle Sharps rifle to a group of abolitionists in Kansas. I only know that the slave problems will end in an armed conflict. but did he actually instigate the war?
The Civil War? Not really. He helped contribute to the conflict of Kansas' state hood called Bloody Kansas but I don't know if the weapons he acquired for that conflict were actually used. Bloody Kansas itself I don't really see as a cause of the Civil War so much as a early sign of what was coming. His sister's book however did ignite a wave of tensions between North and South.
one might said that the Confederacy actually dissolved 'internally' they can't actually fund their war efforts and thus resulting in a high rate of inflation, and followed by a wave of desertions which ruines the efforts to stave off the sieges laid by the 'Yanks' correct?
Yes. The Confederacy found itself in heavy debts because Northern blockades were crippling the Southern economy.
I don't know how severe desertion was. The thing about the Confederate Army is that there really wasn't one. One existed on paper, but effectively there was not organized command until very late in the war. The army had no unified goals other than 'win the war' and the leaders like Robert E. Lee, Braxton Bragg, and Edmund Kirby Smith were all fighting their own wars. They never had the concrete strategic organization of the Union army or the support network. Robert E. Lee seems to have maintained a great deal of order and discipline in his army, but I'm not sure how bad the situation got for others as the war drew to a close.
IMO I think internal dissolution would have been the Confederacy's state war or no war. In the 1850's cotton prices spiked as a result of warfare in the Middle East between Egypt, the Saudi's, and the Ottomans and generally the gradual dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. Egypt wasn't a major source of cotton but the conflict did cause cotton prices to spike. This hurt the British textile industry as well as the US industry. The British in turn advanced rapidly their cotton production in India. This ended up having drastic ramifications for the South after the War because Britain no longer depended as heavily on US cotton supplies (and US cotton was deemed inferior to Indian cotton). The Boll Weavil also had a population explosion in the late 19th century greatly damaging cotton crops in the US.
Both these events would have happened with or without the Civil War. The South's economy was going to collapse either way in the 1870's and 1880's. Would have been interesting to see their reaction to that.
And defecting made it less likely that the North would move on to simply exterminating the civilian populace.
I find that suggestion hilarious.
1. By the 1860 The radical abolitionists could be 'faded away' and the war could be totally averted before it even broke out. too bad 'a few, and weak' hardcore abolitonists 'shouts' so loud that a group of slave owners heard their messages so clear. and some few politicians considered it is a provocation. One version of Civil War history books said that a group (or a number of groups) of Southern priests did regularly preaced another radical messages 'taken from The Bible' itself saying that slavery is a common good and abolitionism is a sin. If the european laws against Heresy has been enacted anywhere in the US those priests will face a hard legal case and will be eventually , and severly punished. But because heresy doesn't exists in any U.S. code of law. (I wonder how priests of different religious orders organizes and governs in such environments?) those priests continued to spread such 'teachings' every Mass day and thus the North-South polarizations aggregated further. (and since the Bible is a collection of religious scriptures that includes ones of Judaism (The Old Testament) and a set of collections regarding to Jesus (The New Testament), the pro-slavery preachings are likely derived from the Old Testaments where religious figures were also Kings of the old Israel) but. did the groups of pro-slavery priests really ever exists and spread the messages that favors those bands of southern politicians?
2. By 1860. Did the southern cotton planters and the Policymakers of the southern states recieves any messages regarding to the relationships between the Ottoman politics and cotton prices and other British cotton policy? Did they aware that British Empire successfully annexed India by 1820s and the Empire was slowly expanding eastward? or did they simply cares only a cotton prices which they can sell? they did have some guts to speculate. but by then, (southern) cotton planters did not seems to see the cotton market throughout the whole supply chain. Or by then was it possible to see that?
Southern states did grow other cash crops too! they also grew Tobacco and Sugarcanes. did the two crops also counts amongs southern economic policy? and who did they sell these produces to?
3. By the same year. Did the southerns even considered establishing domestic textile industry there instead of relying heavily on exports? At least 3 Southern states have access to Appalachian coals (I think) which could fuel their industry effort if they want to Industrialize. even if a group of Southern politicians considered domestic industrialization is a feasible option. did they ever have a chance to convince the mainstream southern politicians the merits if such investment (without even talking about Slavery politics to them). if so, did the mainstream southern politicians still considered the proposal 'Anti-Slavery politics'?
4. Was The CSA 'Army' actually a large chunck of militias? didn't CSA Armed forces have logistics corps?
did the groups of pro-slavery priests really ever exists and spread the messages that favors those bands of southern politicians?
Yes they did exist. In about the 1820's I think it was when the debate over slavery first really hit hard Southerns began looking for moral justifications of slavery. One of the justifications that appeared was religious where Southerns took the Bible and interpreted various sections to be in support of slavery (and honestly some sections of the Bible can easily be read that way). They didn't specifically target politicians per se, but they did preach it and politicians being part of society like everyone else heard it.
By 1860. Did the southern cotton planters and the Policymakers of the southern states recieves any messages regarding to the relationships between the Ottoman politics and cotton prices and other British cotton policy? Did they aware that British Empire successfully annexed India by 1820s and the Empire was slowly expanding eastward? or did they simply cares only a cotton prices which they can sell? they did have some guts to speculate. but by then, (southern) cotton planters did not seems to see the cotton market throughout the whole supply chain. Or by then was it possible to see that?
Hmm. That is a good question and I can honestly say I do not know XD If your familiar with the phrase "King Cotton" it refers to the South's belief that they could form an independent state based on the cotton trade which was until the later half of the 19th century extremely lucrative. I'm not sure if they saw its decline coming. They would certainly be aware of British control of India and the British were building a cotton industry there as early as the turn of the 19th century. How aware the South was of this or whether they saw it as a threat to their own industry I do not know.
Southern states did grow other cash crops too! they also grew Tobacco and Sugarcanes. did the two crops also counts amongs southern economic policy? and who did they sell these produces to?
Tobacco and SUgarcane were stables of the Southern economy but not as strongly as cotton. The thing about Sugarcane is that you need a very wet environment to grow it. Most of the South is fairly dry so outside of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida there wasn't much sugar growing. Sugarcane also quickly diminishes the nutrients in the soil where it grows making it long term cost ineffective as it just used up the land. EDIT: most sugarcane growing in the Americas happened in the Caribbean and South America (Brazil today has a huge sugar industry).
Tobacco had kind of fallen to the side for the US economy in favor of cotton. Tobacco wasn't big in the South during most of the 19th century until some guy whose name I can't remember invented a machine that sped up the production process of cigarettes and reduced the labor cost and revived the industry.
3. By the same year. Did the southerns even considered establishing domestic textile industry there instead of relying heavily on exports? At least 3 Southern states have access to Appalachian coals (I think) which could fuel their industry effort if they want to Industrialize. even if a group of Southern politicians considered domestic industrialization is a feasible option. did they ever have a chance to convince the mainstream southern politicians the merits if such investment (without even talking about Slavery politics to them). if so, did the mainstream southern politicians still considered the proposal 'Anti-Slavery politics'?
I'm not big on textile history (though interestingly some people are!). My knowledge on it comes from Eric Foner and his studies on American industry during the Reconstruction. There were industrialists in the South who wanted to boost a domestic industry and there were mills through out the south primarily located in Georgia and the Carolinas but the market drop of the mid 1850's hit them very hard because their mills were not as well established as those in New England.
As for coal, if you reference one of my earlier posts I mentioned the main problem. There was a lot of coal available in Alabama and Virginia (later West Virginia) but these deposits were not as easily accessible as those in Pennsylvania. A brief look at a US map will show the problem:
Focus on the east end of the US and that huge dark spot running through the Appalachian Mountains. Getting to that coal was very difficult in the 1800's, and Pennsylvania had a big geographic advantage. The Susquehanna River Basin. The numerous tributary rivers made moving the coal by water very easy and much much cheaper than mining in the south. The South certainly had the resource but it was not cheap to get to it. They certainly could have built their own industry (and eventually the textile industry did move into the southern states) but more likely they'd have just kept buying from the North had they not lost the war or had the war not happened.
EDIT: The other issue though is that the early textile industry did not use coal power. It used water from rivers. I'm actually not sure when coal power would have started to be used. The reason New England really kicked ahead of the South was because of geography (geography matters people!). The southern states population centers sat primarily east of the Appalachian mountains on a fairly even and wide coastal plain. Rivers were there but they moved slower. This mattered because faster rivers in the New England states (which have a steeper elevation incline) were more effective for early textiles mills once water power started to be harnessed.
EDIT EDIT: There's also the issue of competition for capital. Why would a successful cotton farmer take a risk and invest in textiles when he can just use his money to get a few more slaves maybe some more land and keep growing cotton? Textiles had their minor burst in the South during a price dip in cotton during the 1830's and 1840's. When cotton prices spiked in the 1850's this capital for investment vanished because cotton became so much more valuable for those years.
As a side note I am now remembering things I didn't even know I knew so these posts are getting more jumbled and clumpy than my posts already are
4. Was The CSA 'Army' actually a large chunck of militias? didn't CSA Armed forces have logistics corps?
Depends on who you ask. Some historians will say the entire CSA was one big militia others say it had a standing army. CSA was broken into two sections: the Provisional Army and the Confederate Army. The Provisional Army was militia while the Confederate Army was the actual standing army.
But like I said they didn't really have centralized command. The southern states themselves often managed their armies independent of one another (Georgia in particular is very famous for this during the war) and didn't like the troops leaving their home states. In this sense the CSA was more of a militia force thrown together by the Southern States than a true standing army. But of course by this is also true of the Union Army. The standing federal army was very small. Most of the forces that fought for the North were state units as well.
The CSA did not have a centralized supply chain. The states themselves equipped their troops. A great deal of the equipment used by the CSA during the war actually came from the North. Initial victories left them to scour the field and they acquired Union arms, munitions, rations, clothing etc.
As a note the Civil War is often regarded as the event that made the United States Army a true standing army rather than a skeleton force like it had often been and this was a huge expansion on Federal power.
4. Was The CSA 'Army' actually a large chunck of militias? didn't CSA Armed forces have logistics corps?
Depends on who you ask. Some historians will say the entire CSA was one big militia others say it had a standing army. CSA was broken into two sections: the Provisional Army and the Confederate Army. The Provisional Army was militia while the Confederate Army was the actual standing army.
But like I said they didn't really have centralized command. The southern states themselves often managed their armies independent of one another (Georgia in particular is very famous for this during the war) and didn't like the troops leaving their home states. In this sense the CSA was more of a militia force thrown together by the Southern States than a true standing army. But of course by this is also true of the Union Army. The standing federal army was very small. Most of the forces that fought for the North were state units as well.
The CSA did not have a centralized supply chain. The states themselves equipped their troops. A great deal of the equipment used by the CSA during the war actually came from the North. Initial victories left them to scour the field and they acquired Union arms, munitions, rations, clothing etc.
As a note the Civil War is often regarded as the event that made the United States Army a true standing army rather than a skeleton force like it had often been and this was a huge expansion on Federal power.
Pretty much. The lack of central coordination among Confederate militias is often cited as a factor in their defeat. A decentralized military structure can be beneficial when fighting an asymmetrical war; not so much when fighting an industrial conventional war. With the Confederate Constitution specifically spelling out state sovereignty, the CSA ran into exactly the same problem that the United States did under the Articles of Confederation: the federal government being unable to get the states to act as a coherent whole. If the governor of NC was worried about Union forces invading and didn't want to send extra regiments to reinforce garrisons in LA, then that was that. Jefferson Davis had to go to great lengths to convince state governors to act in a semi-organized fashion, and got pushback from it within the CSA. Ironically, there were some fringe radicals calling for secession from the CSA over the "oppressive federal government".
Contrast this to Lincoln's wartime military powers in the Union, and it's not difficult to see a significant advantage.
There aren't many nation states that have been founded on the idea of oppressing another group of human beings. Nazi Germany and the CSA are the only two that spring to mind.
LordofHats wrote: You'd be surprised how successful Waffen SS vets have been at 'redeeming' the image of the SS. There's still people who insist the WSS didn't know anything about the Holocaust.
Whoa really? They do realise that the SS were the Nazi elite, right? A representation of the "perfect nazi," and as such were put in charge of, say, executing political prisoners, rounding up of "undesirables," and other things that the Nazi party wanted .
Defending the German Army I could understand...but the SS? feth 'em.
There aren't many nation states that have been founded on the idea of oppressing another group of human beings. Nazi Germany and the CSA are the only two that spring to mind.
Though it was never part of their manifesto the soviets did a pretty spectacular job of it.
and any nation under sharia law would also count, so Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Iran, etc
There aren't many nation states that have been founded on the idea of oppressing another group of human beings. Nazi Germany and the CSA are the only two that spring to mind.
Ancient Sparta as well, but that's digging pretty far back.
LordofHats wrote: You'd be surprised how successful Waffen SS vets have been at 'redeeming' the image of the SS. There's still people who insist the WSS didn't know anything about the Holocaust.
Whoa really? They do realise that the SS were the Nazi elite, right? A representation of the "perfect nazi," and as such were put in charge of, say, executing political prisoners, rounding up of "undesirables," and other things that the Nazi party wanted .
Defending the German Army I could understand...but the SS? feth 'em.
There's actually something to the argument that the Wafen SS was largely unaware of the camps. The leadership almost undoubtedly did but from field grade officers down its pretty likely were unaware of the Holocaust. You have to put it in perspective we know for sure that at least one of the thirty nine SS divisions knew about and operated the camps. The question is/was to what extent did personal bounced from the camps for various reasons back to combat duty spread thier knowledge of the atrocities. It's not inconceivable to believe that some, and arguably most of the Wafen SS' half million plus were unaware or dubious of the existence of the camps. What I categorically reject is the idea that the Wafen had NOTHING to do with the camps, and that only the Allegemeine and the Totenkampf division were involved.
The SS also didn't remain the "Nazi elite" not that they really were. The SS experienced a massive expansion from 1935-45; by the end of the war there were more non-Germans let alone non-Aryans in the SS than there were "perfect Nazis."
@Lordofhats
TLDR: there's a glimmer of truth in there, but having read a decent swath of the historiography you are referring to I know what you mean.
There aren't many nation states that have been founded on the idea of oppressing another group of human beings. Nazi Germany and the CSA are the only two that spring to mind.
Yes, most nation states just end up oppressing other human beings incidentally.
LordofHats wrote: You'd be surprised how successful Waffen SS vets have been at 'redeeming' the image of the SS. There's still people who insist the WSS didn't know anything about the Holocaust.
Whoa really? They do realise that the SS were the Nazi elite, right? A representation of the "perfect nazi," and as such were put in charge of, say, executing political prisoners, rounding up of "undesirables," and other things that the Nazi party wanted .
Defending the German Army I could understand...but the SS? feth 'em.
It's specifically the Waffen SS. I don't think anyone is insane enough to try and defend the Totenkompf SS. You know. Unless their position is there was no Holocaust which honestly is probably a less absurd position to me because at least then the SS is completely 'vindicated' because there were no crimes to commit
Way easier to say they were innocent when the crime didn't happen than admitting the crime happened and still decrying their innocence
There aren't many nation states that have been founded on the idea of oppressing another group of human beings. Nazi Germany and the CSA are the only two that spring to mind.
Ancient Sparta as well, but that's digging pretty far back.
Does Rome and the British Empire count as nation states?
I don't quite understand the meaning of nation state to be honest . How does it differ from a country, or an empire?
LordofHats wrote: You'd be surprised how successful Waffen SS vets have been at 'redeeming' the image of the SS. There's still people who insist the WSS didn't know anything about the Holocaust.
Whoa really? They do realise that the SS were the Nazi elite, right? A representation of the "perfect nazi," and as such were put in charge of, say, executing political prisoners, rounding up of "undesirables," and other things that the Nazi party wanted .
Defending the German Army I could understand...but the SS? feth 'em.
It's specifically the Waffen SS. I don't think anyone is insane enough to try and defend the Totenkompf SS. You know. Unless their position is there was no Holocaust which honestly is probably a less absurd position to me because at least then the SS is completely 'vindicated' because there were no crimes to commit
Weren't the Waffen SS the advance guard, the ones who would go forward and kill and oppress as many people as possible in preparation for the German Army and for the camps? It was in my understanding that they were similar in function to the Gestapo; to oppress and to spread terror.
I admit that I did not know there were variations of the SS; they all pretty much go under the "evil bastard" category.
LordofHats wrote: You'd be surprised how successful Waffen SS vets have been at 'redeeming' the image of the SS. There's still people who insist the WSS didn't know anything about the Holocaust.
Whoa really? They do realise that the SS were the Nazi elite, right? A representation of the "perfect nazi," and as such were put in charge of, say, executing political prisoners, rounding up of "undesirables," and other things that the Nazi party wanted .
Defending the German Army I could understand...but the SS? feth 'em.
It's specifically the Waffen SS. I don't think anyone is insane enough to try and defend the Totenkompf SS. You know. Unless their position is there was no Holocaust which honestly is probably a less absurd position to me because at least then the SS is completely 'vindicated' because there were no crimes to commit
Weren't the Waffen SS the advance guard, the ones who would go forward and kill and oppress as many people as possible in preparation for the German Army and for the camps? It was in my understanding that they were similar in function to the Gestapo; to oppress and to spread terror. I admit that I did not know there were variations of the SS; they all pretty much go under the "evil bastard" category.
The Waffen SS functioned more like an elite formation of German troops, shock troopers and line breakers thrown into the heaviest parts of the fighting. There's undoubtedly formations of the SS that are completely irredeemable like the SS-Totenkopfverbande (the ones who handled the camps) and the picked men who went BEHIND the German army to round up undesirables (Jew hunters basically) but out of any group of individuals wearing an SS uniform the Waffen SS is least likely to be evil fethheads. There's an excellent book on this subject titled Black Edelweiss that was written by a Waffen-SS machinegunner who served on the Eastern front against Russia, they eventually surrendered to the Americans towards the close of the war and after the camps had been discovered. They were confused as to why they were being treated so poorly, they hadn't seen camps, just waves of angry ruskies and had fought honorably, then someone showed them photos. The rest of the book is dealing with that and rationalizing it with the pride of fighting and serving one's country what they had thought of as honorably up till that point. A fun fact is that 60% of the Waffen-SS wasn't even German, so calling them the "Exemplar of the Perfect Aryan" is probably a bit off base, a good chunk probably wouldn't have qualified to join the full SS. For the record I'm not defending the actions of Nazi Germany here, but I am encouraging looking at things from a complete point of view. Units of the Waffen-SS certainly did commit war crimes and it's clear that some of them WERE evil fethheads.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Weren't the Waffen SS the advance guard, the ones who would go forward and kill and oppress as many people as possible in preparation for the German Army and for the camps? It was in my understanding that they were similar in function to the Gestapo; to oppress and to spread terror.
I admit that I did not know there were variations of the SS; they all pretty much go under the "evil bastard" category.
There were three branches of Evil Bastard:
Allgemeine (Standard SS and no one really cares about them because their history boring )
Waffen (Armed SS)
Totenkompf (these were the guys who guarded the concentration camps and no in their less than right mind tries to defend them)
Gestapo were the Nazi party's secret police. They worked within Germany and its conquered territories rather than out on the battlefield.
Waffen SS were the military arm of the Nazi party and not part of the Wehrmacht proper. Hitler wanted to ultimately do away with the Wehrmacht and replace them entirely with the Waffen SS.
Yes. They were essentially political zealots employed as storm troopers and as execution squads. They were going to clear out all the undesirables so that the German people could have their living space. The thing about the Waffen SS though is that as a group they were very divergent. Many of them weren't even from Germany. There's that famous scene from Band of Brothers where what's his name says "What Poles where SS uniforms?" The silly part is that there were German-Poles in the SS (and the SS division containing Poles did fight at Normandy) as well as Frenchmen, Belgians, Austrians, Fins, etc etc. Sep Dietrich is also well known for openly opposing the Nazi parties racist positions and many of the public policies of the rest of the SS. Their history is really very fascinating for numerous other reasons. Unfortunately there are people who take their fascination with the Waffen SS a bit too far.
Plus there were a fair number of dudes conscripted into the Waffen SS towards the end of the war - kind of a dick move to lump them in with the guys running the gas chambers.
The Allgemeine SS is fascinating just for all the Occult implications that have been connected to them over the years. Himmler's "Aryan Knights" etc and so forth. So if you're the kind of person who's interested in occultism and history that boring history has some interesting tidbits.
I have serious reservations about the SS and Occultism. Basically those reservations being that there is no evidence for any of it. It all stems back to a series of pulp novels from the 50's and 60's.
A historian from the UK named Nicholas Goodrich Clarke wrote a book back in the 80's about Nazi's and Occultism and ultimately concluded that it was all pseudo-history produced by people who did no real research and basically made the whole thing up (it's actually quite similar to the Satanism scares of the 1980's).
To my knowledge no serious historical scholars actually put any stock into Nazi Occultism.
Does Rome and the British Empire count as nation states?
I don't quite understand the meaning of nation state to be honest . How does it differ from a country, or an empire?
It doesn't, really.
I would say Rome and Britain were not founded on the idea of oppression in nearly the same way as Sparta, Nazi Germany and the CSA. In each of those cases, the society was specifically and explicitly built for the purpose of suppressing their fellow man. Rome and Britain both implemented oppressive policies, but with different rationale and end goals (and because of this, arguably a lesser degree of oppression, although that's debatable)
edit:
LordofHats wrote: I have serious reservations about the SS and Occultism. Basically those reservations being that there is no evidence for any of it. It all stems back to a series of pulp novels from the 50's and 60's.
A historian from the UK named Nicholas Goodrich Clarke wrote a book back in the 80's about Nazi's and Occultism and ultimately concluded that it was all pseudo-history produced by people who did no real research and basically made the whole thing up (it's actually quite similar to the Satanism scares of the 1980's).
To my knowledge no serious historical scholars actually put any stock into Nazi Occultism.
I think it depends on your definition of "occultism". If you include the Nazi Party's obsession with the supposed "mythic traditions of the Aryan race", then there's some substance to be found: Nazi party rallies and official events staged to resemble their vision of ancient rites, as well as at least one expedition to Tibet in search of their "lost origins". The idea that Hitler was trying to create an kampfgruppe of Nazi vampires, or summon edritch abominations to destroy the Allies...not so much.
Bromsy wrote: Plus there were a fair number of dudes conscripted into the Waffen SS towards the end of the war - kind of a dick move to lump them in with the guys running the gas chambers.
Bad, bad stuff was widely done at pretty much all levels of the WWII German military.
Some of the most brutal and horrifying atrocities of the Nazis at war are laid bare in secretly recorded conversations of captured German soldiers published in Britain for the first time today.
The prisoners, mostly ordinary soldiers, sailors and airmen as opposed to SS hardliners, are overheard bragging about shooting women and children for sport as well as raping and slaughtering innocent civilians.
But unbeknown to them, British and U.S. intelligence were secretly eavesdropping on their private chats. Transcripts made from the astonishingly candid recordings sat gathering dust on the shelves of the National Archives in Kew, all but forgotten until they were picked up by historian Sönke Neitzel in 2001. His subsequent book 'Soldiers; diaries of fighting, killing and dying', caused a sensation when it was published in Germany last year. And next week it will be published in English for the first time.
It reads as a chilling examination of how war changes man, in this case the deep metamorphosis it wreaked on 40 per cent of German men between the years of 1939 and 1945 - the nearly 20 million who donned a uniform for their Fuehrer. Both the ordinary German soldier, and the self-regarding officer corps, are condemned in their own words in the secret recordings, shatrtering the myth that excesses in wartime were the responsibility of a few fanatical party members.
There aren't many nation states that have been founded on the idea of oppressing another group of human beings. Nazi Germany and the CSA are the only two that spring to mind.
Ancient Sparta as well, but that's digging pretty far back.
This. Laconia would have been a pretty sucky place to be born. The aristocratic fratboy parties consisted mostly of raiding slave villages for fun.
It's also notable that Hitler used the Spartan's hold on Laconia as an exemple of what a small but military minded population can do to hold on to power in a certain location. He messed up the numbers by a lot though.
LordofHats wrote:You'd be surprised how successful Waffen SS vets have been at 'redeeming' the image of the SS. There's still people who insist the WSS didn't know anything about the Holocaust.
The average Waffen SS soldier, and even lower rank officers, probably didn't have any idea (or care, all things considered). Remember that by the last year of the war, about 1/3rd of the SS was non-German. Most of these met their end around Sarajevo, though after the fall of communism in eastern Europe, a surprising number of survivors applied for their German veterans benefits, suggesting that quite a few of them took off their uniforms and fled as 'civilians'.
LordofHats wrote:
But 100,000 don't make a revolution, especially not without some serious $$$ behind them. I see no such event being at all plausible within the next 50 years, and given the record of younger voters supporting Obama, we're likely looking at a primarily older demographic being behind these petitions. A demographic that won't be around much longer (no offense senior members ).
Hats, you're making some pretty broad assumptions there. (A big one is that there's a gigantic generation gap in Texas. I'm not Frazz, but I can't say that I've heard anything to support this. Most Texans I've met still think of themselves, politically, as Texans first, and everything else second. Texas has, for lack of a better term, a strong nationalist view of Texas, even among the young.)
And, as an aside: you're forgetting history again: a 100,000 people can make a revolution. It just takes a few charismatic leaders and a willing audience.
LordofHats wrote:(and honestly some sections of the Bible can easily be read that way)
My, understatement much?
Leviticus 25:
44 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
47 If an alien or a temporary resident among you becomes rich and one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells himself to the alien living among you or to a member of the alien's clan,
48 he retains the right of redemption after he has sold himself. One of his relatives may redeem him:
49 An uncle or a cousin or any blood relative in his clan may redeem him. Or if he prospers, he may redeem himself.
50 He and his buyer are to count the time from the year he sold himself up to the Year of Jubilee. The price for his release is to be based on the rate paid to a hired man for that number of years.
51 If many years remain, he must pay for his redemption a larger share of the price paid for him.
52 If only a few years remain until the Year of Jubilee, he is to compute that and pay for his redemption accordingly.
53 He is to be treated as a man hired from year to year; you must see to it that his owner does not rule over him ruthlessly.
54 Even if he is not redeemed in any of these ways, he and his children are to be released in the Year of Jubilee,
55 for the Israelites belong to me as servants. They are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
I'd say the Bible is pretty definitive on slavery, there.
Edit: On Nazi occultism: Himmler personally, or the SS-Ahnenerbe financed the following expeditions: Karelia, 1935, whos objective was to meet with Finnish 'witches and sorcerers'. Bohuslän, 1936, ostesivly moere scientific, this study of rock carvings and petroglyphs in Sweden's published paper is awash with Aryanism. Italy, 1937: findings supposedly included 'norse runes' amid prehistoric carvings around Val Camonica. And the list goes on...
Worldwide about 1% of the population is schizophrenic.
Louisiana has about 45,000 schizophrenics in the state, and any time about half of them are in an acutely psychotic state.
The Louisiana petition has about 25,000 e signatures
Nationwide the petitions have about 660k e signatures, while in comparison we have have 3.3 million schizophrenics.
I'm not saying those who want to secede are psychotic, I'm just saying the hard core political wing nuts that want to take their ball and go home are fewer in number than those who are drinking or smoking weed as a way to attempt to deal with the voices telling them to throw themselves in front of a train.
I'm not saying those who want to secede are psychotic, I'm just saying the hard core political wing nuts that want to take their ball and go home are fewer in number than those who are drinking or smoking weed as a way to attempt to deal with the voices telling them to throw themselves in front of a train.
That's a bit misleading. For all we know, the voices in their head are telling them to gun down Rush Limbaugh, or blow up Fox News HQ. Or, maybe that was just me sitting outside their windows whispering after having slipped enough acid to melt Jimi Hendrix's guitar into their morning cuppa.
BaronIveagh wrote: The average Waffen SS soldier, and even lower rank officers, probably didn't have any idea (or care, all things considered). Remember that by the last year of the war, about 1/3rd of the SS was non-German. Most of these met their end around Sarajevo, though after the fall of communism in eastern Europe, a surprising number of survivors applied for their German veterans benefits, suggesting that quite a few of them took off their uniforms and fled as 'civilians'.
You'll actually find me to be one of the only historians to suggest the SS got overly hosed after the war. By and large more war crimes were probably committed by the Heer than any other arm of German military during the war but its the SS that got regularly denied veterans benefits even though by and large most of them never personally committed a war crime in all likely hood.
And, as an aside: you're forgetting history again: a 100,000 people can make a revolution. It just takes a few charismatic leaders and a willing audience.
100,000 people out of 25,000,000? Good luck with that.
LordofHats wrote:Leviticus 25:
44 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
47 If an alien or a temporary resident among you becomes rich and one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells himself to the alien living among you or to a member of the alien's clan,
48 he retains the right of redemption after he has sold himself. One of his relatives may redeem him:
49 An uncle or a cousin or any blood relative in his clan may redeem him. Or if he prospers, he may redeem himself.
50 He and his buyer are to count the time from the year he sold himself up to the Year of Jubilee. The price for his release is to be based on the rate paid to a hired man for that number of years.
51 If many years remain, he must pay for his redemption a larger share of the price paid for him.
52 If only a few years remain until the Year of Jubilee, he is to compute that and pay for his redemption accordingly.
53 He is to be treated as a man hired from year to year; you must see to it that his owner does not rule over him ruthlessly.
54 Even if he is not redeemed in any of these ways, he and his children are to be released in the Year of Jubilee,
55 for the Israelites belong to me as servants. They are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
I'd say the Bible is pretty definitive on slavery, there.
Yep that would be it
Though as a side note. Laws governing slavery != moral support of slavery and the form of slavery used by the ancient Jews more closely resembled Indentured Servitude than Chattel but yep. Very easy to read a Bible as being pro-slavery (though the religious theories posited by the south also contained elements of Proto-Darwinism).
One of my favorite Southern pre-war fears is the fear that if the slaves were freed they'd start having sex with all the white women who would revert to their 'beastial' insticts. So they had to keep the blacks enslaved to protect the dignity of southern women
Edit: On Nazi occultism: Himmler personally, or the SS-Ahnenerbe financed the following expeditions: Karelia, 1935, whos objective was to meet with Finnish 'witches and sorcerers'. Bohuslän, 1936, ostesivly moere scientific, this study of rock carvings and petroglyphs in Sweden's published paper is awash with Aryanism. Italy, 1937: findings supposedly included 'norse runes' amid prehistoric carvings around Val Camonica. And the list goes on...
I have not studied that much into the Nazi Occultism thing. I just know that Clarke's book is considered definitive on the subject and that his book amounts to "it's hogwash." This is of course where the 'crazy' historians come in because they'll screw around with this stuff even when no one else cares
LordofHats wrote: People in general do stupid things. In the words of the Immortal Gregory House: "People are idiots."
But 100,000 don't make a revolution, especially not without some serious $$$ behind them.
The general rule in politics is for every 100 people who sign a petition, one of them cares enough to change their vote on the issue. And that's the old rule, with hand written petitions, with the ease of on-line petitions that number is probably overstated. So, at best, there's a thousand people in Texas who actually care about this in any meaningful amount.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote: There's actually something to the argument that the Wafen SS was largely unaware of the camps. The leadership almost undoubtedly did but from field grade officers down its pretty likely were unaware of the Holocaust.
That argument only really works if we pretend the only atrocity of Nazi Germany was the extermination camps. But before the Shoah by Gas there was the Shoah by bullets, afterall.
Millions upon millions were slaughtered by German soldiers as they advanced East. In many cases this was organised from senior officers, in many other cases the slaughter was the personal initiative of junior officers and regular soldiers.
There were few instances of soldiers of any rank speaking up against this kind of behaviour. In fact, in most cases where complaints were made it was because units were advancing too slowly as they kept diverting into villages to slaughter the residents... rarely because of any moral objection.
You have to put it in perspective we know for sure that at least one of the thirty nine SS divisions knew about and operated the camps. The question is/was to what extent did personal bounced from the camps for various reasons back to combat duty spread thier knowledge of the atrocities.
There might have been only 800 troops working at Treblinka, but there was a railway line constructed and maintained to deliver people to it. The train system continued to charge for one way tickets to that tiny camp, 800,000 tickets in total, without ever questioning what happened to the people it had shipped there.
If people, either soldiers or civilians didn't know about the holocaust, it was because they chose to look the other way. The holocaust was built with hate and paved with indifference as they say.
So please don't try this stuff about 'oh they fought bravely and never had any idea of the evil that was being committed'. Because its serious bs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: The Waffen SS functioned more like an elite formation of German troops, shock troopers and line breakers thrown into the heaviest parts of the fighting.
Sort of but not really. There were elite Waffen SS units, like the SS Adolf Hitler, but many of the units, especially in the later stages of the war, were assigned to the SS for mostly political reasons (as the Nazi power achieved near absolute control and the Wehrmacht declined, especially following Valkyrie).
In the end, many of the SS divisions were indistinguishable from standard Wehrmacht units.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: I have serious reservations about the SS and Occultism. Basically those reservations being that there is no evidence for any of it. It all stems back to a series of pulp novels from the 50's and 60's.
A historian from the UK named Nicholas Goodrich Clarke wrote a book back in the 80's about Nazi's and Occultism and ultimately concluded that it was all pseudo-history produced by people who did no real research and basically made the whole thing up (it's actually quite similar to the Satanism scares of the 1980's).
To my knowledge no serious historical scholars actually put any stock into Nazi Occultism.
Well, at the time there was strong connections between far right politics and all kinds of alternative religion*. The similarity between the Buddhist symbol and the Nazi one isn't completely co-incidental, afterall.
But everything after that is pretty much total fantasy, for sure.
*Much like alternative religion is now connected to far left politics, in the first half of the 20th century it was the other way around. Basically instead of left wing idiots scanning through other country's religions for the 'open your mind' bs you get these days, you had a bunch of right wing idiots scanning through the religions of other countries looking for stuff about elite people surging to power.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
codemonkey wrote: I think it depends on your definition of "occultism". If you include the Nazi Party's obsession with the supposed "mythic traditions of the Aryan race", then there's some substance to be found: Nazi party rallies and official events staged to resemble their vision of ancient rites, as well as at least one expedition to Tibet in search of their "lost origins". The idea that Hitler was trying to create an kampfgruppe of Nazi vampires, or summon edritch abominations to destroy the Allies...not so much.
Althought Soviet Russia did fund experiments in cross breeding humans and gorillas.
In the end Stalin was convinced by someof his staffers that such cross breeding was eugenics, and therefore fascism and some of the biologists fled, while others were likely shot as enemies of the people.
Soviet Russia, second only to Nazi Germany for truly bizarre historical titbits.
There were few instances of soldiers of any rank speaking up against this kind of behaviour. In fact, in most cases where complaints were made it was because units were advancing too slowly as they kept diverting into villages to slaughter the residents... rarely because of any moral objection.
Wow, and I thought Hitler practiced the 'Big Lie'. You might want to read the actual protests then. Most of them were based on the fact that it was putting the soldiers involved's morale in the toilet.
The Waffen SS was barely slowed by it, as butchering the villagers was the job of Einsatzgruppen and other special units like SS-Sonderregiment "Dirlewanger" (Which was, granted, in and out of the Waffen SS at different points during the war). If you'd like a (disturbing) view of how efficient they were, I recommend the Jager report.
BaronIveagh wrote: The average Waffen SS soldier, and even lower rank officers, probably didn't have any idea (or care, all things considered). Remember that by the last year of the war, about 1/3rd of the SS was non-German. Most of these met their end around Sarajevo, though after the fall of communism in eastern Europe, a surprising number of survivors applied for their German veterans benefits, suggesting that quite a few of them took off their uniforms and fled as 'civilians'.
Only if you pretend the holocaust occurred purely in the extermination camps. There was an incredible slaughter carried out directly by soldiers as they advanced East, and SS units were among the worst perpetrators.
The only argument that can be made is that some SS units were no worse than the German army as a whole, which is a pretty measly defence.
And, as an aside: you're forgetting history again: a 100,000 people can make a revolution. It just takes a few charismatic leaders and a willing audience.
You're forgetting your politics - that 100,000 people on a survey don't make a movement. They represent people who care at least enough to press a button on their computer.
How many people forwarded on that Kony2012 nonsense... and what proportion of them actually spent the time to look into Invisible Children to learn they were fauxtivists, let alone spend the time to actually do something useful about the issue?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote: That's a bit misleading. For all we know, the voices in their head are telling them to gun down Rush Limbaugh, or blow up Fox News HQ. Or, maybe that was just me sitting outside their windows whispering after having slipped enough acid to melt Jimi Hendrix's guitar into their morning cuppa.
You miss his rather cleverly put point. He wasn't, in any way, suggesting these people are schizophrenic. He was showing how pathetically small their numbers are, by comparing it to the number of people with a mental disorder that we all know affects a very small portion of the population.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote: Wow, and I thought Hitler practiced the 'Big Lie'. You might want to read the actual protests then. Most of them were based on the fact that it was putting the soldiers involved's morale in the toilet.
A nitpick that establishes my greater point, so it's good to see you agreeing with me overall.
The Waffen SS was barely slowed by it, as butchering the villagers was the job of Einsatzgruppen and other special units like SS-Sonderregiment "Dirlewanger" (Which was, granted, in and out of the Waffen SS at different points during the war). If you'd like a (disturbing) view of how efficient they were, I recommend the Jager report.
The Wehrmacht as a whole was slowed by the slaughter.
There might have been only 800 troops working at Treblinka, but there was a railway line constructed and maintained to deliver people to it. The train system continued to charge for one way tickets to that tiny camp, 800,000 tickets in total, without ever questioning what happened to the people it had shipped there.
If people, either soldiers or civilians didn't know about the holocaust, it was because they chose to look the other way. The holocaust was built with hate and paved with indifference as they say.
So please don't try this stuff about 'oh they fought bravely and never had any idea of the evil that was being committed'. Because its serious bs.
To add to this Seb, we also have transfer records for SS units and know that as the war went on, men were increasingly pulled from the Totenkompf to the combat units of the SS. The idea that the Waffen SS was completely unaware of the concentration camps is absurd. Soldiers talk.
The other issue is that there really weren't that many SS units. I think something like 30-40 of them were registered but only about a dozen of them actually existed. Like most of the German military, half the Waffen SS only existed on paper. We have confirmed instances of war crimes being committed on at least 1 occasion by every single WSS division. Not to say every SS soldier committed a war crime personally, but to suggest the SS or the Heer didn't make detours to commit war crimes is very silly and surely the force at large knew these things were happening.
Of course the Red Army gave the Wehrmacht a good run in the war crimes department.
sebster wrote:
A nitpick that establishes my greater point, so it's good to see you agreeing with me overall.
Yes, it's easy to see how I'm agreeing with you if you never bother to read the reports I'm talking about. Those that have know that I'm pointing out you're full of gak. The really amusing ones were the rare few where the SS actually put the culprits in front of a judge and tried them. When you get sentenced to death for 'rape, murder, and cruel, inhuman behavior unbecoming of a German officer' toward Jews by the SS, you may have gone too far (Gotta love sonderkommando Dirlewanger, what a bunch of cards!).
LordofHats wrote:
If people, either soldiers or civilians didn't know about the holocaust, it was because they chose to look the other way. The holocaust was built with hate and paved with indifference as they say.
Interesting note: the testimony of the gas chamber door delivery men at Auschwitz shows how to hide what's literally in front of people.
LordofHats wrote:
To add to this Seb, we also have transfer records for SS units and know that as the war went on, men were increasingly pulled from the Totenkompf to the combat units of the SS. The idea that the Waffen SS was completely unaware of the concentration camps is absurd. Soldiers talk.
Actually the records show that the majority were pulled from SS-Totenkopfverbände and transferred to 3. SS-Panzergrenadier-Division Totenkopf. Meaning they were shuffled around the same organization from being rear echelon to front line. Early on, some were sent to 6th SS Mountain Division Nord to fight in Finland and above the arctic circle and did not come back until late in 1944. (Talk about being reassigned to Antarctica). Also early on, some were sent to 1 SS Infantry Brigade, which was formed from men taken from both SS-Totenkopfverbände and Totenkopf to conduct 'anti-partisan activities' behind the lines.
Interestingly enough, of the last unit, Untersturmführer (roughly 2nd Lt) Max Täubner and four others were tried, in theory, for what amounted to 'conduct unbecoming' but in reality for violating the secrecy around the holocaust and stripped of rank and sentenced to ten years (varies according to source. I have not seen the originals). Taubner had, apparently, taken pictures of his men in the act in 1941 and had shown them to his wife and a few friends.
It was not really until the institution of SS-Mannschaft that word in the ranks started to get around, but that was 1945.
LordofHats wrote:
The other issue is that there really weren't that many SS units. I think something like 30-40 of them were registered but only about a dozen of them actually existed. Like most of the German military, half the Waffen SS only existed on paper. We have confirmed instances of war crimes being committed on at least 1 occasion by every single WSS division. Not to say every SS soldier committed a war crime personally, but to suggest the SS or the Heer didn't make detours to commit war crimes is very silly and surely the force at large knew these things were happening.
Officially 38 Divisions. At a staggering 35% casualty rate, they lost, KIA or MIA, 314,000 men. For comparison, the United States Army lost around 318,000 in all theaters. Of War Crimes in which a large number of the unit can be considered guilty, only five can really be named, mostly the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd division, though 'special' units such as Kaminsky and Dirlewanger gave the much larger 'Das Reich' a run for their money. Dirlewanger were largely killed, either in combat or by their guards after surrendering. Due to the nature of their unit, none were transferred to other units. Kaminsky were transferred 'en mass' to the Russian Liberation Brigade, as both consisted of allied traitors. (Their fate once the Red Army got their hands on them should be fairly self evident.
The argument of who knew and who didn't will never be truly proved as you'll find testimony from most saying they didn't and from others claiming they did.
LordofHats wrote: Your forgetting the 4th, the 12th, the 14th, the 36th, the 1st SS Panzer. At the least.
The 1st he mentioned, also the 36 which is what part of that last text block is about. Dirlewanger.
What were you talking about in reference to the 4th SS division?
The ones I listed are just the ones off Wikipedia and Wiki is only gonna list the big ones.
Hmm I did not know about that .
For future reference, and not snarkily, there is no duplication of numbers in the SS divisions .
They were simply numbered sequentially.
Thank god for cali, I wouldnt be affected at all if a war happened.
about Syrian civilians or freedoms
.
. How does it differ from a country, or an empire?
