The CSA (Opinions)

[Masada]

The point that the European empires were still treating natives as serfs is a good one, though.

Sure. Its still pretty drat distinct from slavery. You can't force your serfs to rutt with each other. You could in the South.

So the argument for the demonization of the CSA is not as strong as it may seem.

The CSA has the dubious distinction of fighting a war to maintain a pernicious social institution against its own countryman and lawfully constituted government.

I mean, we did abolish it in Brazil without having to fight a bloody civil war, and our economy was more based on it than that of the CSA...

Which makes the CSA's stance even harder to understand.

 

[Cutlass]

I think that the CSA was legitimately a country. The USA is meant to be ruled by the people, and when that many people are displeased with the government it should be the government's place to do something about it. If the North had recognized the unhappiness in the South and done something about it, then there wouldn't have been an issue. They declared independence from a government that they didn't feel was doing what they wanted it to do. The only problem was that the old government failed to recognize it's failures and let its displeased citizens go and just try and do better in the future. The USA tried to hold onto post offices, governemnt land, and forts. If they had let all land in the new country go and stopped trying to occupy land that they no longer owned, then we could have just had two American nations. But of course they couldn't let that happen. They had to try and maintain a militaristic presence in a country they had the chance to reconcile with but refused to do so. I'm not saying that the Civil War was a war of Northern Aggresion, but they had plenty of chances to avoid it.

I'm not one of the "South will rise again against the vile Northern oppressors" type of people, but I do think that both sides are equally at fault and that states should have some rights, including the right to leave the federal government if they feel that it is not fufilling it's duty or if the majority of the population no longer wishes to be with the federal government, which was the case in the 1860's.

The did recognize the unhappiness of the South. Those slaves were a miserable bunch. But the real problem was the South's work to expand that misery. If they had just accepted that other places did not want to have slavery forced on them, they could have gotten away with it for another generation or 2.

 

[DroopyTofu]

(Before I get going, let me say to any southerners out there, I know you're not all stereotypical hate-mongers, but it makes a surprisingly solid argument)

So if the South rose again, and insisted that they be allowed to discriminate against blacks, gays, and atheists, should they be allowed to do so? If their leaders tried to seize Federal Arms and lands in defense of these backwards ideas, should they not be stopped?

Slavery was a moral evil that had to be stamped out. That this fact made the Southern economy and way of life obsolete is a sad thing, but it does not create a need for self-determination. The South was plenty represented in the existing government despite how they seemed to feel about Mr. Lincoln.

I'm not a stereotypical hate-mongerer, and I am from the South. As it has been shown in the Southeast United States Thread, there is not a call to discriminate against the groups you mentioned. It is only a very small portion of people that want the CSA to come back. They just happen to be the ones that are given the attention. It doesn't make a good news story to say, "Southerners of all races come together together in love of the United States." But I would say that yes, if a majority voted to leave the United States, that that should be allowed. The only problem is getting a majority to want to leave.

The did recognize the unhappiness of the South. Those slaves were a miserable bunch. But the real problem was the South's work to expand that misery. If they had just accepted that other places did not want to have slavery forced on them, they could have gotten away with it for another generation or 2.

No one was forcing the North to own slaves. They decided in their states that they didn't want to own slaves, and it was their state's rights to make that decision. I assume your referring to the laws that made it illeagal for Northerners to help slaves escape and laws letting slave owners bring slaves when they moved. I personally don't think those were the best laws, so at least we can agree on that.

 

[Cutlass]

But the South was trying to force the people of the West to accept slaves so that the slave state representation in Congress would remain strong enough to protect slavery. So the slavers were trying to force slavery down the throats of people who wanted no part of it.

 

[GhostWriter16]

But the South was trying to force the people of the West to accept slaves so that the slave state representation in Congress would remain strong enough to protect slavery. So the slavers were trying to force slavery down the throats of people who wanted no part of it.

This is actually a decent point.

Case in point: I don't support the CSA and the reason is because of slavery. I actually agree with a lot of the other things they stood for: State's Rights, Free Trade, Small Government, exc.

In the modern day, I actually say its about time, and by 2040 it'll happen. I don't know they'll call themselves the CSA (I doubt they will) but the Federal Government has had a say in far too much and someday the people will show them they have to fight to be the best.

 

[Arakhor]

You know, they're the federal government. The clue's in the name there, really.

 

[GhostWriter16]

You know, they're the federal government. The clue's in the name there, really.

If y'all want that in the UK that's fine, but the 10th of the US constitution supports states rights. Therefore there are state's rights in the US.

NOTE: While some bizarre things in the US constitution supported slavery, the 1st Amendment, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit... Contradicted it. The contradiction was luckily fixed.

 

[Arakhor]

And where does it state in your Constitution that the "rights" of an individual state overrule federal authority?

 

[Lord of Elves]

And where does it state in your Constitution that the "rights" of an individual state overrule federal authority?

While I think fundamentally states' rights is a good thing, I do also think that based on his posts, Domination would probably much prefer the Articles of Confederation. However, the likelihood that any form of united America would exist had those articles been adhered to is very, very little.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

If y'all want that in the UK that's fine, but the 10th of the US constitution supports states rights. Therefore there are state's rights in the US.

NOTE: While some bizarre things in the US constitution supported slavery, the 1st Amendment, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit... Contradicted it. The contradiction was luckily fixed.

Come back when you can come up with a decent description of "liberty." Until then its just a meaningless buzzword.

 

[GhostWriter16]

While I think fundamentally states' rights is a good thing, I do also think that based on his posts, Domination would probably much prefer the Articles of Confederation. However, the likelihood that any form of united America would exist had those articles been adhered to is very, very little.

No, the Federal Government needs some authority. I would have prefered the founders gave them a little less, but currently they can do what it says. No more.

 

[Lord of Elves]

No, the Federal Government needs some authority. I would have prefered the founders gave them a little less, but currently they can do what it says. No more.

Eight years of George W. Bush Jr. beg to differ. Although, before the flame storm begins, I use him as a recent example. There have been admittedly many more violations of the Constitution, perpetrated by much more popular presidents. His, being the most recent, fall under my attention demonstrably.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Eight years of George W. Bush Jr. beg to differ. Although, before the flame storm begins, I use him as a recent example. There have been admittedly many more violations of the Constitution, perpetrated by much more popular presidents. His, being the most recent, fall under my attention demonstrably.

Oh I know. Along with Obama, Clinton, George HW, Jimmy Carter, and every president from FDR to him (I intentionally excluded Reagan as he didn't add to the government, though they overdid their authority under him as well.) I was saying its illegal to do more thant the constitution says they can. I won't pretend Bush is innocent.

 

[Mansa Musa]

Oh I know. Along with Obama, Clinton, George HW, Jimmy Carter, and every president from FDR to him (I intentionally excluded Reagan as he didn't add to the government, though they overdid their authority under him as well.) I was saying its illegal to do more thant the constitution says they can. I won't pretend Bush is innocent.

Are you sure Reagan didn't increase the size of government? I'd like to argue that since the Military is a Federal jurisdiction that since he increased the military budget significantly that the size of government grew under Reagan. Also, the national debt grew to 3 trillion. About a fifth of what the debt is today and I haven't even mentioned the War on Drugs.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Are you sure Reagan didn't increase the size of government? I'd like to argue that since the Military is a Federal jurisdiction that since he increased the military budget significantly that the size of government grew under Reagan. Also, the national debt grew to 3 trillion. About a fifth of what the debt is today and I haven't even mentioned the War on Drugs.

Well, the war on drugs is a state's job to do or not do at their discretion. I agree its not a federal job.

As for military, it is legal under the constitution for the federal government to have and exapnd it so that one is legal.

 

[Dachs]

Case in point: I don't support the CSA and the reason is because of slavery. I actually agree with a lot of the other things they stood for: State's Rights, Free Trade, Small Government, exc.

The traitor government of the Confederate States stood for none of those things. They willfully abrogated supposed states' rights in passing military conscription laws. They employed trade restrictions and the threats thereof as a diplomatic bludgeon in Europe. And "small government" didn't even enter into the question, because the size of the bureaucracy wasn't a sticking point. You are transposing modern talking points onto a 160 year old rebellion.

 

[Junzi Nicuzn]

If y'all want that in the UK that's fine, but the 10th of the US constitution supports states rights. Therefore there are state's rights in the US.

NOTE: While some bizarre things in the US constitution supported slavery, the 1st Amendment, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit... Contradicted it. The contradiction was luckily fixed.

Que? The way you have this written suggests you believe the First Amendment to be Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness' is part of the Declaration of Independence.

And the actual First Amendment (Freedom of Press, Speech, Religion, Assembly & Petition) does not appear to directly contradict slavery.

 

[Lord of Elves]

The traitor government of the Confederate States stood for none of those things. They willfully abrogated supposed states' rights in passing military conscription laws. They employed trade restrictions and the threats thereof as a diplomatic bludgeon in Europe. And "small government" didn't even enter into the question, because the size of the bureaucracy wasn't a sticking point. You are transposing modern talking points onto a 160 year old rebellion.

True as that may be, one does have to take into account that those ideas were a significant part of the separatist movement during the 1860's, and the fact that the Confederate States of America was born by fire into a period of war. Theoretically, had the Civil War been a more successful conflict for the CSA, it could have gone on to better embody those ideals.

On the subject of whether or not the Confederacy would have eventually outlawed slavery, I think at some point or another the south would have been forced to join the industrial revolution, and most likely find that their slaves were not as useful as they once were.

I don't consider myself an expert on the Civil War, however, so I may in fact be horribly, horribly wrong

 

[Miles Teg]

True as that may be, one does have to take into account that those ideas were a significant part of the separatist movement during the 1860's

How, exactly? The tarriffs were a big issue thirty years ago, but the issue had mostly quieted down in the three decades since. Since the only states rights issue that the Confederacy cared about was a state's right to allow slavery, I don't see how that would have been especially relevant.

 

[_random_]

Come back when you can come up with a decent description of "liberty." Until then its just a meaningless buzzword.