Doomed to failure? What are you smoking? The main reason the North defeated the South was sheer numbers, overwhelming the Confederates on the Battlefield. The CSA would have done just fine and dandy without the murdering, rapist Yankee soldiers on their soil.
A question for southerners and germans.
- Thread starter cubsfan6506
- Start date
Doomed to failure? What are you smoking? The main reason the North defeated the South was sheer numbers, overwhelming the Confederates on the Battlefield. The CSA would have done just fine and dandy without the murdering, rapist Yankee soldiers on their soil.
ummmm........
Extremely normal.
I think he may have meant that a 'nation' which allows its member states to come and go as they please is doomed to failure . . .
scipian
Czar
Who cares that we (Southern Americans) lost the war? I don't. However, many do resent the fact that the national government has grossly overstepped its constitutional role constantly since then. I personally don't care much about it, but the national government does get involved in stuff it shouldn't.
BTW- On the whole thing about the North being the good savior of the blacks and the Southerners being the cruel, racist, oppressors- look at the entire issue. The Northerners had absolutely no need for slaves (they didn't have the proper land for plantations) so they ended slavery in the North. They finally decided to end slavery in the South only when it was out of their jurisdiction and as a stunt to get more blacks to rebel against the Confederates. They would have gladly accepted the South back with slaves; slavery was just a PR thing for the masses. Also, just for your knowledge, the Emancipation proclamation did not affect slaves in states allied to the Union which clearly shows the hypocrisy.
So, in summary, no I do not feel bad about losing the war. I agree that the national government needs to be strong and that we cannot arbitrarily divide our power and losing our international status. However, i do resent the revisionism, hypocrisy, and simplification of many liberals and Northerners. The war was not started nor continued on the issue of slavery.
BTW- On the whole thing about the North being the good savior of the blacks and the Southerners being the cruel, racist, oppressors- look at the entire issue. The Northerners had absolutely no need for slaves (they didn't have the proper land for plantations) so they ended slavery in the North. They finally decided to end slavery in the South only when it was out of their jurisdiction and as a stunt to get more blacks to rebel against the Confederates. They would have gladly accepted the South back with slaves; slavery was just a PR thing for the masses. Also, just for your knowledge, the Emancipation proclamation did not affect slaves in states allied to the Union which clearly shows the hypocrisy.
So, in summary, no I do not feel bad about losing the war. I agree that the national government needs to be strong and that we cannot arbitrarily divide our power and losing our international status. However, i do resent the revisionism, hypocrisy, and simplification of many liberals and Northerners. The war was not started nor continued on the issue of slavery.
Nylan
Characters Welcome
@Elrohir
I mentioned a Supreme Court Ruling, not Constitutional text.
Had the south taken the notion to court instead of rushing into secession before checking if it was legal, they would have been shut down
because the Supreme Court says so.
I mentioned a Supreme Court Ruling, not Constitutional text.
Had the south taken the notion to court instead of rushing into secession before checking if it was legal, they would have been shut down
because the Supreme Court says so.
scipian
Czar
Also. I am by no means speaking for the German people. Still, I do think that Germany was ill treated in the First World War. Through a complicated and confused series of alliances, Europe ended up in a war. It was not Germany's fault; it was arguably either the Austrians or Serbs. When Germany lost though, it was given complete responsibility for it and had such restrictions that it could not pay off the debt it owed. To help solve this, the French graciously took away the industrial section of Germany, ensuring the continued subjugation of Germany. Although the German people do ultimately have the fault of Hitler on their hands (they elected him), Hitler could not have come if the French had not been so callously and stupidly brutal. Either crush your enemy so that he cannot hit back or be gracious and conciliatory towards him. Don't kick him in the groin, mock him, and then blindfold yourself and turn your back to him.
Sorry. I've finished my little rant. I've just started getting interested in the geopolitics of the Germans/Russians/Ottomans in the early 1900s.
Sorry. I've finished my little rant.
I've just started getting interested in the geopolitics of the Germans/Russians/Ottomans in the early 1900s.
Nylan
Characters Welcome
Also. I am by no means speaking for the German people. Still, I do think that Germany was ill treated in the First World War. Through a complicated and confused series of alliances, Europe ended up in a war. It was not Germany's fault; it was arguably either the Austrians or Serbs. When Germany lost though, it was given complete responsibility for it and had such restrictions that it could not pay off the debt it owed. To help solve this, the French graciously took away the industrial section of Germany, ensuring the continued subjugation of Germany. Although the German people do ultimately have the fault of Hitler on their hands (they elected him), Hitler could not have come if the French had not been so callously and stupidly brutal. Either crush your enemy so that he cannot hit back or be gracious and conciliatory towards him. Don't kick him in the groin, mock him, and then blindfold yourself and turn your back to him.
Sorry. I've finished my little rant.
I agree wholeheartedly. Check out the "Germany got screwed?" thread in the History Forum to see some very puzzling arguments
...if you haven't already
Yeah, the Supreme Court is NEVER wrong. Darned if I cannot find the words "perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union" anywhere in the Constitution. Courts have changed their minds before and a frequently dead wrong. Yes, their rulings do make it the law, but that doesn't mean the ruling itself cannot be wrong.
If Missouri ever secedes, I know where my loyalties lie.
If Missouri ever secedes, I know where my loyalties lie.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
And I'm sure its completely different from Germany, where every single man woman and child directly participated in the murder of the Jews, down to the two year olds. Every argument that has been made in favor of the south can be made in favor of the Nazis.
The only difference is that Nazis at least had the backbone to be loyal to their country, the south didn't even have that decency. Anyone advocating in favor of the south should be charged with Treason.
Didn't know that being a traitor was a conservative value.
I love my country, but if I were forced to choose between the USA and Missouri, there is simply no question about where my ultimate loyalty lies. As long as Missouri remains an equal partner with the other States in These United States, and I am loyal American citizen through and through.
Nylan
Characters Welcome
VRWC:
It may not be right by your standards, but it sure as heck is the law, and I agree with the post above yours. It's against the law to secede, and thus they should not have seceded
It may not be right by your standards, but it sure as heck is the law, and I agree with the post above yours. It's against the law to secede, and thus they should not have seceded
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
So your loyal when its convienient to you? How is that "loyal through and through". By that standard Alger Hiss, Benedict Arnold and Lord Haw Haw are loyal citizens through and through. Why don't you just fess up to being disloyal?
PrincepsAmerica
Nothingness made flesh
I wish I identified with my state more, but at this point, especially in large part due to the Civil War, the state you live in means little.
Also any other state trying to secede from all the others would get gang-banged so I wouldn't worry too much about "if" one's state were to secede.
I could only picture it mattering if there were a large scale break-up and subsequent balkanization. In which case I'd either stay here, or move to whichever region seemed the most promising materially and agreeable to my ideals. In fact I think that would be pretty rad if America split up and I had a choice of different types of America to live in. Too bad it would mean the end of these United States.
Also any other state trying to secede from all the others would get gang-banged so I wouldn't worry too much about "if" one's state were to secede.
I could only picture it mattering if there were a large scale break-up and subsequent balkanization. In which case I'd either stay here, or move to whichever region seemed the most promising materially and agreeable to my ideals. In fact I think that would be pretty rad if America split up and I had a choice of different types of America to live in. Too bad it would mean the end of these United States.
No, it would be anything but convenient. Do you think Missouri seceding would stand a chance in hell against the military might of the USA? It would actually probably be a rather sucky position, I would imagine.
As far as being disloyal, what are you smoking? We are a union of sovereign States. There is nothing in the Constitution that says Missouri cannot secede. Therefore, since it isn't prohibited from seceding, it is automatically allowed to secede, regardless of any idiotic rulings from the Supreme Court. If it seceded, I would no longer be a citizen of the USA, but would remain a citizen of Missouri and would owe my allegience to Missouri.
Nylan
Characters Welcome
So the whole judicial branch is useless in your eyes? The supreme court ruling means nothing?
sounds like you're the one not following the constitution
sounds like you're the one not following the constitution
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
And I don't Imagine many people want to end up like Alger Hiss, or Lord Haw Haw, so we shouldn't question their loyalty.
We are a Nation, only Nation-states are sovereign, administrative districts have no such sovereignty. You cannot make agreements with actual sovereign states, you have no rights against encroachement on your borders, your representatives lack diplomatic immunity, and you are fundementally subject to a higher national law. In no way are states a sovereign entity, any more then we are a union of sovereign building zones.
And that is called Treason, just admit it and at least be honest.
Of course not. I said they are frequently wrong.
In that particular instance? Yes. Just as it would mean nothing to me if they decided to rule that I had no right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution clearly states that I do, so I would blow off any ruling that just decided for shits and giggles to deny me my Constitutional rights. In the same vein, sovereign States are equally free to blow off any ruling, as far as I am concerned, of equally asinine rulings.
Actually, in the case of that ruling, it would be the court.
Except, by definition, they arn't, because they are the final authority on the matter of constitutional interpretation.
Nylan
Characters Welcome
The judicial branch interperets the constitution, and therefore they decide what implied powers the states do and do not possess. Naturally they cannot directly contradict the constitution, but in this case they are not.
The ruling stands
It is unconstitutional to secede, as the states do not have that right, it is not an implied right, according to the Supreme Court.
Simple enough
The ruling stands
It is unconstitutional to secede, as the states do not have that right, it is not an implied right, according to the Supreme Court.
Simple enough
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
From where I stand, the day the United States stops being a union of WILLING participants and start being a union where several participants are forced to stay in via legal trivia that was never indicated in the constitution they willingly agreed to, is the day America goes from democracy to tyranny.
Not that a "No unilateral secession" rule is bad in itself - as long as the Federal government take due act of a clearly expressed majority desire (in a given state) to secede from the union, and negociate in good faith with the concerned state the condition of such a secession.
Refusal by the federal government to enter good faith negociations would likely in the eyes of many, particularly in the ROW, legitimize unilateral secession.
Not that a "No unilateral secession" rule is bad in itself - as long as the Federal government take due act of a clearly expressed majority desire (in a given state) to secede from the union, and negociate in good faith with the concerned state the condition of such a secession.
Refusal by the federal government to enter good faith negociations would likely in the eyes of many, particularly in the ROW, legitimize unilateral secession.
CCA
Emperor
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2003
- Messages
- 1,449
You just gave the very reason the South was doomed to failure.
No matter how many battles the South wins it will eventually lose.
The North might lose the 1st Civil War, but do you really think a "revanche" mentality won't develop in the North.
The North's military and Industrial capability means that, no matter what the South does, it will lose.
Thats my opinion anyways..
