A question for southerners and germans.

[Pontiuth Pilate]

This forum desperately needs a "tears of joy" smiley. This thread has fulfilled all my expectations. :joy:

If Missouri ever secedes, I know where my loyalties lie.

:secesh-highfive!:

 

[Stolen Rutters]

I don't complain when the southerners are taking all the auto jobs from us Michiganians, but I am tired about the south complaining that they get no breaks when they have all the leverage and virtually control the whole shebang now.

 

[Elrohir]

@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.

Because the Supreme Court is more important than the Constitution itself, right? Texas v. White was a blatantly political decision with very little basis in reality. The vote was 5-3, and all five justices who ruled that states could not legally secede were appointed by President Lincoln. The Chief Justice himself was a cabinet member under Lincoln, and should have recused himself.

 

[Ingvina Freyr]

How about a little mind experiment?

Let's say the South had won the CW. As I understand it, they came awfully close to doing so. Let's also, for the sake of argument assume that no consecutive war between the USA and the CSA erupts. For how long do you think the CSA as a nation could and/or would have held on to slavery? 30 years? 40 years? 50 years? What do you think would have happened after that? Would the southerners want to unite with the north again, or do you think they still would want to be a separate nation from the north?


It would also be interesting if all of you who have expressed your joy over Germany's defeat in WW2 would explain why you feel that way. I'm not saying I disagree (yet ), but I would like to see your reasoning.

 

[scipian]

I'll just comment some on the issue of state's rights.

I have no loyalty to my state. I'd (reluctantly) fight them to bring them back to the Union. However, I do think that states should (in theory) be able to secede. My reasoning though is that such a divide would adversely affect our international status and so I'd do what is practical instead of what is right.

 

[Bast]

Do you seriously know people who call it that?

As with much about the South, that simultaneously amuses, frightens, and annoys me.

Aww no.

This thread is gettin all "Southerners foist pathetic, face-saving delusion on others" up in heeyah.

Aren't you a jew? Why are you more concerned with the South than with what Germany did to the jews?

 

[Stolen Rutters]

It would also be interesting if all of you who have expressed your joy over Germany's defeat in WW2 would explain why you feel that way. I'm not saying I disagree (yet ), but I would like to see your reasoning.

I'm not white. 'nuff said.

Well, maybe not enough said...

A Third Reich taking control of the industrial power of a united Eurasia across the pond in the 1940s (and keeping it for posterity) is not a positive harbinger to my current existence in the alternate history. I wouldn't want to live under that regime in any history and there is a chance I may not have existed at all.

It probably wouldn't have been a gas chamber event, but mass sterilization of the lower races would achieve the same result.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

re: illegal secession

The whole idea that secession is illegal is ludicrous. I have already posted sufficient reasons above but I'll refute the whole 'but the Supreme Court says' some more.

If we are going to get all pedantic:

The Supreme Court in itself is illegal. The Supreme Court gets its power from the Constitution. The Constitution is illegal because the Constitution was written at the Philadelphia Convention. The writers were supposed to be proposing amendments for the Articles of Confederation but they decided to instead illegally make new laws that would be binding to all the states. Of course the Articles of Confederation were illegal as well because the lawful authority was the British Empire before the Americans illegally revolted.

Secession is self-legitimizing. And I don't think the Confederate States cared much about the will of the Supreme Court if they were going to leave the Union.

 

[Yeeek]

I had no idea to this day, the south and the north is still a touchy subject for some Americans.

 

[skadistic]

How about a little mind experiment?

Let's say the South had won the CW. As I understand it, they came awfully close to doing so. Let's also, for the sake of argument assume that no consecutive war between the USA and the CSA erupts. For how long do you think the CSA as a nation could and/or would have held on to slavery? 30 years? 40 years? 50 years? What do you think would have happened after that? Would the southerners want to unite with the north again, or do you think they still would want to be a separate nation from the north?

http://media.putfile.com/Hank-Williams-Jr---If-The-South-Woulda-Won

This may answer some questions.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Wow you Americans still get pretty hepped up about you little tete a tete don't you?

Even the Celts don't complain about past defeats as much as some on here

 

[bhsup]

I had no idea to this day, the south and the north is still a touchy subject for some Americans.

It's not so much the war itself that is a touchy subject for me, but rather State's Rights in general. The war is long over and the South lost and the nation re-united. That's history and in hindsight it was probably best for the world as a whole that it happened that way.

That said, I still consider General Lee (with perhaps a dose of Gen. Jackson's fire added in) to be the utopian ideal for what an American should be.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

You know then that Lee went to the South so he wouldn't have to fight his family, not because he agreed so much with the Rebellion.

But I do agree, Robert E. Lee was one of those great americans we should aspire to emulate, like TR.

 

[silver 2039]

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.

The CSA would have collapsed even if they won the war. Their political system was unsteady, loose and doomed to failure. Texas would have been the first to secede from the CSA. Also their agriculture based economy on the back of slave labor....well I think we all know the problems with such an economy. The CSA;'s collapse was inevitably it was only a matter of how and when.

 

[bhsup]

You know then that Lee went to the South so he wouldn't have to fight his family, not because he agreed so much with the Rebellion.

He didn't support the secession, that's true. But he was a loyal Virginian, and felt bound to help his State against the northern invaders. He was offered command of the Northern armies and refused.

 

[Atlas14]

The CSA would have collapsed even if they won the war. Their political system was unsteady, loose and doomed to failure. Texas would have been the first to secede from the CSA.

I completely disagree. Their government was around for not even a decade, you have no idea what it would have evolved into and how much it would have strengthened during relative peace, all it ever experienced was a war. And as for Texas being the first to secede, I don't really know what you are basing this off of...

Also their agriculture based economy on the back of slave labor....well I think we all know the problems with such an economy. The CSA;'s collapse was inevitably it was only a matter of how and when.

I agree their economy did not have the strongest foundations, but that does not mean that after a hard-fought war they wouldn't have realized the economic importance of industrial production.

 

[Bill3000]

I had no idea to this day, the south and the north is still a touchy subject for some Americans.

The south is just bitter that they had to assimilate to the rest of America.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

He didn't support the secession, that's true. But he was a loyal Virginian, and felt bound to help his State against the northern invaders. He was offered command of the Northern armies and refused.

This is where I can no longer agree with Lee. My loyalty is to my country first, and my state second. I think Lee had a duty to fight the insurrection, not to join it.

I completely disagree. Their government was around for not even a decade, you have no idea what it would have evolved into and how much it would have strengthened during relative peace, all it ever experienced was a war.

I'm inclined to agree with this. This would be like sitting in Britain in 1784, reading the Articles of Confederation, and laughing at how the "damned yankee" government was a doomed failure.

I agree their economy did not have the strongest foundations, but that does not mean that after a hard-fought war they wouldn't have realized the economic importance of industrial production.

I believe the reference here was to the narrow capability of the southern economy. It was wholly built on King Cotton, which was built on slavery. We can see how dependent on marketing this cotton the South was in the Civil War; the Anaconda Plan absolutely strangled the South. I don't know if the Southern economy was capable of supporting the kind of industrialization the North saw, or if it was even capable of a transition away from King Cotton. If it was forced to remain with the same system, then its days would indeed be numbered.

 

[.Shane.]

For what it's worth, the professor of my US Military History class, who is the Civil War professor here (I think it's actually part of his title), is adamant in the belief that the Civil War was at its heart about slavery. I don't know if that's an opinion that most people in the field share, though.

As someone who is in the field, I can tell you that this is the judgment of Historians. There are always revisionists, apologist, hobbyists, etc... who disagree, but the main of the field have share this viewpoint.

And that's why I argue so strongly. I advocate purely for the integrity of history. I have no agenda or axe to grind with any group. I'm not southern or northern. I simply want American history taught as honestly as possible.

Again, because the South succeeded. It succeeded because its slave-owning aristocracy realized it no longer had the clout to bully the North into its demands.

Not well spelled, but well said.

Wrong. The US Constitution does not mention the right to secede anywhere in it's text. (If it does, then please quote the relevant passage. But you can't, because I'm right and it doesn't.) And according to the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."

And this is where the dishonesty of the argument comes into play. Keep in mind, I'm not saying there was no right to secede, only that it was undetermined.

Yes, you've got the Jeffersonian states-rights/"narrow construction" argument down. Why have you ignored the Hamiltonian pro-federal govt/"broad construction" argument?

See, this is why it is in dispute. You can quote the 10th Amendment till your blue in the face, but the counter to that is the "necessary and proper" Constitutional clause.

Hamilton (and later Nationalists like Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, etc...) used this to pass all kinds of legislation that is not "expressly stated in the Constitution".

Hell, the whole national economic policy that Hamilton brilliantly laid out in the 1790s would NOT have passed your test. In fact, it was Jefferson's opposition to Hamilton that saw to the creation of the first 2-party system.

National bank? Internal Improvements? Where does it say the fed can do these things, Jefferson would argue! Yet, they were done, being necessary and proper.

Interestingly, Jeff as president turned into a broad constructionalist when making undeclared war on the Barbary Pirates and when purchasing Louisiana, etc... See, the reality is, that politicians glom onto the argument that suits their purpose.

For example, the Federalists, Hamilton's party of "broad constructionists" became the "narrow construction" party in opposition to the LA purchase, the War of 1812, etc... Oh, the irony.

So, the whole idea that they had a "right" is ridiculous. Now, they may well have. The problem was there was no definitive case or legal US precedent. But, as I've just outlined, we had strong philosophical arguments on either side.

The South could've done a lot to legitimize their position. For example, if a state joins the country via Congress then couldn't they try and leave that way? The south never petitioned Congress, filed a lawsuit, or anything to test the legal validity of their viewpoint. They simply left.

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.

ROFL, so much for your belief regarding the "rule of law".

You and Elrohir miss the obvious counter-argument... the SC case came in 1869. 4 years after the war. Thus, in 1860, there was no clear decision, either way.

That said, yes, the SC makes decisions that we, to varying degrees, disagree with. The "Dred Scott" case, for example, but somehow, I don't see you offering that as an example of a "bad" decision.

But, like it or not, the SC is the end point for determining the Constitutionality of things. You can argue if their position is morally right, but you cannot argue if it is legally right.

If Missouri ever secedes, I know where my loyalties lie.

WOLVERINES!

Because the Supreme Court is more important than the Constitution itself, right? Texas v. White was a blatantly political decision with very little basis in reality. The vote was 5-3, and all five justices who ruled that states could not legally secede were appointed by President Lincoln. The Chief Justice himself was a cabinet member under Lincoln, and should have recused himself.

And the 3 against were appointed by pro-south doughface northern Democrats. Does that make their viewpoint less legitimate as well? I don't suppose you dismiss Dred Scott on this grounds. If the Bush appointees lead an overturn of Roe v Wade will you disavow it because of the "partisanship" of the appointees? Somehow I think you'll conveniently forget the argument you make here should that occur.

In the end, its irrelevant. See my prior comments.

Secession is self-legitimizing. And I don't think the Confederate States cared much about the will of the Supreme Court if they were going to leave the Union.

Self-legitimizing or self-defeating. Ultimately, it comes down to whether you win or lose.

Wow you Americans still get pretty hepped up about you little tete a tete don't you?

My stake in this is as an Historian. I simply get sick of people trying to push this flawed version of history.

 

[.Shane.]

This is where I can no longer agree with Lee. My loyalty is to my country first, and my state second. I think Lee had a duty to fight the insurrection, not to join it.

This is an interesting point that gets lost in history.... Prior to the CW I think that people were more loyal to the idea of "state". Commonly you'd say the "United States are". After the CW it became the "United States is". Can't remember if it was Foote or McPherson who made that observation.