The CSA (Opinions)

[Lord of Elves]

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.

Theoretically, the Confederacy could have gone on post-war to give the rights the states desired, since during war-time it didn't exactly have the chance. That's pure theory, though. The Confederacy was denied a lot of opportunities to really display the changes it espoused by the fact that it was born into war, in my opinion at least.

 

[Dachs]

...or a theoretically victorious traitor state might not have gone on to do any of those things. Wishful thinking about historical what-ifs does not an argument constitute. The actual actions of the traitor state belied many of the principles that the cabal that governed it claimed to have held or is alleged to have held.

 

[DroopyTofu]

But it wasn't a traitor state. It was a new nation, but the one it was born from refused to recognize it's failures and let the region go. They tried to maintain a military presence in a soveign nation where they were not wanted and were attacked because of this.

 

[Dachs]

The traitor state was not sovereign, but a collection of armed gangs acting violently due to their favored candidates' failures at the polls.

 

[GhostWriter16]

But it wasn't a traitor state. It was a new nation, but the one it was born from refused to recognize it's failures and let the region go. They tried to maintain a military presence in a soveign nation where they were not wanted and were attacked because of this.

If it weren't for one thing, slavery, I'd agree the Union should have let them go. They should have let them go anyway, but invaded to free the slaves.

 

[Miles Teg]

If it weren't for one thing, slavery, I'd agree the Union should have let them go. They should have let them go anyway, but invaded to free the slaves.

Remind me again why loosing a fair and open election gives you the right to rebel against a lawful, non-tyrannical government?

 

[DroopyTofu]

They did not believe that the lawful non-tyrannical government had their best interests in mind, so they decided to leave the governemnt. If the US had withdrawn troops and began engaging in diplomacy, then a solution could have easily been reached without bloodshed.

 

[Dachs]

Why should the United States federal government have withdrawn troops from its own territory due to the demands of brigands and slavers?

 

[DroopyTofu]

The government is supposed to be ruled by the people and ruled by the majority. In those territories, the majority of people did not want to be part of the country. They knew that it was coming. They had already threatened to leave, so it wasn't an overnight decision.

 

[Dachs]

The majority of people, eh? Did the traitors consult their slaves as to whether they should embark on widespread insurrection, pillage, and murder?

A majority of voters in a given territory may vote in favor of something, but that does not make it either legally or morally correct. We have had a demonstration of this in the burqa thread.

 

[duckstab]

The government is supposed to be ruled by the people and ruled by the majority. In those territories, the majority of people did not want to be part of the country. They knew that it was coming. They had already threatened to leave, so it wasn't an overnight decision.

C'mon, man. Majority rule has never been an absolute governing principle in the USA. As some (especially conservatives) never tire of pointing out, it's a constitutional republic, not a democracy. And under the Constitution, as held subsequently by the Supreme Court, secession is illegal.

Why should it be this way? Because the right of the majority to govern needs to be tempered by the rule of law so that the rights of the minority and of the individual are protected. The majority of white male voters in the seceding states wanted to continue to own blacks. Would you want to allow your rights to be taken away if the majority of the voters in your state thought your taxes were too low, or you shouldn't own a gun, or worshipped the wrong God?

 

[Cutlass]

They did not believe that the lawful non-tyrannical government had their best interests in mind, so they decided to leave the governemnt. If the US had withdrawn troops and began engaging in diplomacy, then a solution could have easily been reached without bloodshed.

And why should they have done that? The traitor states had taken no action to resolving the issue bloodlessly before they started a shooting war out of it. 100% of the blame on the traitors.

 

[GhostWriter16]

C'mon, man. Majority rule has never been an absolute governing principle in the USA. As some (especially conservatives) never tire of pointing out, it's a constitutional republic, not a democracy. And under the Constitution, as held subsequently by the Supreme Court, secession is illegal.

Why should it be this way? Because the right of the majority to govern needs to be tempered by the rule of law so that the rights of the minority and of the individual are protected. The majority of white male voters in the seceding states wanted to continue to own blacks. Would you want to allow your rights to be taken away if the majority of the voters in your state thought your taxes were too low, or you shouldn't own a gun, or worshipped the wrong God?

Secession is neither legal nor illegal, hence a state's right. Still, I agree with you on the fact that the slaves needed a vote, hence another reason it was wrong.

 

[Dachs]

Secession is neither legal nor illegal,

untrue

hence a state's right.

debatable

 

[GhostWriter16]

untrue

debatable

Lincoln believed it was illegal, but I think its legal as the constitution doesn't specifically say they can't. However, the slaves did need a vote as was stated.

It doesn't necessarily need to be decided by Athenian Democracy, but everyone (At least non-felons who are over 18) should have a say in who is in the postition to decide.

 

[Dachs]

Just because "you think" something is legal doesn't mean it is. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Violence in defense of one's ignorance of the law is ridiculous.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Just because "you think" something is legal doesn't mean it is. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Violence in defense of one's ignorance of the law is ridiculous.

Who says its illegal?

It may have been made illegal by the government, but that's irrelevant. The constitution gives it to the states or the people in the 10th.

 

[Dachs]

Secession has never been legal, because the United States were founded under a document that explicitly forbade secession, and when that document was replaced, it was replaced by one that did not change the legality of the action of secession.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Secession has never been legal, because the United States were founded under a document that explicitly forbade secession, and when that document was replaced, it was replaced by one that did not change the legality of the action of secession.

Where is secession forbidden? Link?

 

[Dachs]

The third Article of Confederation.