1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Man Murders Nine in Charleston Church

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Cheezy the Wiz, Jun 18, 2015.

  1. Cutlass

    Cutlass The Man Who Wasn't There.

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    46,788
    Location:
    US of A

    This is wrong. Lincoln wasn't responsible for the fact that the South first seceded, and then the South turned it into a shooting war. The actual cause of the war was that the South started shooting at the North. Nothing the North did was responsible for that. It was wholly a decision on the part of the South. No person who was not part of the Southern leadership was in any sense responsible for the fact that the South decided to turn a legal dispute into a shooting war.

    The US is a nation of laws. And there is no legal principle by which one side can unilaterally dissolve a legal contract without due process. The South had no legal right to do what they did, not because a legal case could not be made for the legitimacy of secession, but rather because no attempt was made to make a legal case for secession. So as the Southern actions were first illegal, and then they started a war on the issue before Lincoln really had taken any actions at all, Lincoln bears none of the responsibility here.

    It is not the responsibility of the victim of aggression to immediately capitulate to the demands of the aggressor.
     
  2. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    19,252
    Location:
    On the one spin
    Wrong. The cause of the war was clearly slavery... but the "cause of the war" in the propagandist (who-shot-first) way you are trying to spin it... was the Confederates attacking US soldiers at Fort Sumter.

    As for Prez Lincoln, he had little choice (in terms of making war on the Confederates)... First of all, as I already explained, he was already at War. The Confederates shot at US soldiers and captured a US fort. Saying "Lincoln started it not the Confederates" is like saying Roosevelt started the WWII Pacific theatre war because his "response" was choosing to attack Japan :rolleyes:please...

    Second, Lincoln, as the first US President facing a rebellion on that scale, with whole States embroiled in armed secession, had to set a precedent... secession is not allowed. You secede, you get invaded, period. If Lincoln had not done that, there would be no US by now, because everytime any State disagreed with anything they would just secede. Half the Union would have seceded over Prez Obama's election and/or the ACA (or Prez W Bush's election, or desegregation, or NAFTA, or abortion, or any myriad of controversial issues) by now if Lincoln hadn't set the stakes so high all those years ago.
     
  3. Manfred Belheim

    Manfred Belheim Moaner Lisa

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    8,208
    Forgive me if this isn't the correct thread to bring this up, but I saw in the news that some black people got shot in a church recently?
     
  4. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    19,252
    Location:
    On the one spin
    Yep and you still havent answered this...
     
  5. JollyRoger

    JollyRoger Slippin' Jimmy Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2001
    Messages:
    42,965
    Location:
    Chicago Sunroofing
    It was about individual liberty, not murder.
     
  6. illram

    illram Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Messages:
    9,218
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Saying the CSA didn't start the war is like saying I didn't start the fight when I punched you in the face, you started it when you hit me back.
     
  7. warpus

    warpus In pork I trust

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2005
    Messages:
    51,040
    Location:
    Stamford Bridge
  8. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,740
    The "cause" of the war was an attempt to shift power. That power happened to be the wealth and control slavery in the US, but the south would easily have pulled the same shenanigans if the government tried to centralize over a different topic that consolidated power similarly (and if this hypothetical issue wasn't a terrible human rights violation, they might have been justified in doing so). To support that statement, I cite hundreds of years of warfare in Europe whereby subjects or nobles attempted independence, including both the 80 and 30 years wars as well as the decline of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth into a noble-heavy puppet buffer.

    Also, the war did not start when shots were fired, nor when CSA took the fort. The war started with the act of delivering a serious declaration of independence, and thus obviously I agree it was started by CSA. When you park a large army in another nation's territory and claim "this land is ours now, not yours", that's not a passive action. That's a land grab of another nation's territory. It has had varying degrees of justification throughout history, but declaring independence *is* a hostile action. It doesn't matter if the South did that, stood still, and Lincoln blitzed them .1 second after he read the letter. That would still be CSA starting the war.

    FWIW, CSA was trying to win, and to do so it would have had to win early before the north could mobilize; no time for high road tactics. They came pretty close, too. I have wondered now and then what the long-term consequences of that would be (eventual economic implosion in the south, completely different political landscape for USA in the world wars, how the Soviets would react to WW2, assuming the lack of US didn't chain into different enough political posturing that Germany didn't win). It'd be a pretty different world today.
     
  9. Hygro

    Hygro soundcloud.com/hygro/

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2002
    Messages:
    23,410
    Location:
    California
    That's a reasonable fundamental analysis of the type of action taken but there's a key difference which is that slavery was so integral to the South that they were willing to fight over it regardless of power centers. Or, to synthesize, there was no power to fight over without a slavery division.
     
  10. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    27,235
    Location:
    Sydney
    Of course. Germany was simply aiming for a peaceful excursion. It only became a war when Poland decided to resist. Two to tango.
     
  11. Borachio

    Borachio Way past lunacy

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    26,698
    But hang on just a minute. Poland did attack Germany first.

    We have Alfred Naujocks first-hand eye-witness account as evidence. And damning evidence of Poland's aggressive nature it is, too. Also bodies, gun-shot wounds, uniforms and everything.
     
  12. Formaldehyde

    Formaldehyde Both Fair And Balanced

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    33,999
    Location:
    USA #1
  13. Timsup2nothin

    Timsup2nothin Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2013
    Messages:
    46,747
    I'm surprised they didn't already apply it. Apparently they told her to come down and she kept climbing. Continuing to accumulate elevation advantage put the officers at risk. I wonder why they didn't shoot her?
     
  14. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    19,252
    Location:
    On the one spin
    They would have if they werent under a media spotlight already.
     
  15. Timsup2nothin

    Timsup2nothin Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2013
    Messages:
    46,747
    Plus, she didn't have a towel.
     
  16. Zkribbler

    Zkribbler Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    7,709
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Philippines
    So, you think she was mostly harmless?
     
  17. Zkribbler

    Zkribbler Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    7,709
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Philippines
    It was about that excretable institution known as slavery. :whipped: The North wanted to end it; the South wanted to keep it.
     
  18. Manfred Belheim

    Manfred Belheim Moaner Lisa

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    8,208
    Is there a question for me to answer in any of that?
     
  19. Agent327

    Agent327 Observer

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    16,102
    Location:
    In orbit
    A common misconception; the reason there was a civil war was that the South seceded. This was the issue being decided. Lincoln wasn't fighting slave owners, he was fighting what he called 'rebels.' Slavery was't ended until after the war was done. (Not to mention that there were neutral states during the Civil War.)
     
  20. Gary Childress

    Gary Childress Student for and of life

    Joined:
    May 11, 2007
    Messages:
    4,465
    Location:
    United Nations
    I think it's equally fair to say that there was a civil war because there was slavery, though. The South seceded because there was a lot of pressure growing, especially in northern states to end slavery. Had that pressure not been present, the South never would have seceded to begin with.
     

Share This Page