The CSA (Opinions)

[Huayna Capac357]

Okay, but you agree that the Constitution, as it stands, permits such a practice.

 

[Aegis]

Alright, this was brought up in another thread. The CSA isn't a popular thing to get into detail on. People just say, "I support states rights, therefore I support the CSA!" Which, doesn't work.

The Confederates had slaves, but someone I know who thinks they should have won says while it was wrong it wouldn't have lasted long.

Considering slavery was the bedrock foundation of their society and economy, that's not likely. They would have held onto it until they were forced to change.

I kind of see his point, however, again, it is wrong. That being said, if Canada or Mexico was conducting such a practice today, I'd tell them to release their slaves. If they refused, I would invade them to free them.

Reality is different from rhetoric. Mexico and Canada did not invade the US when slavery was still legal here. Nations will tolerate it and not act. No nation invaded South Africa in order to end Apartheid there.

While I believe in States' Rights, I do not believe secession to be the answer and I consider the formation of the CSA to be treason.

3. Secularism is not a religion: its a philosophy that states that the government and its institutions should remain separate from religion and religious believes. No amount of word-twisting can define secularism as a religion: it doesn't adhere to any supernatural belief systems.

Using that definition, Buddhism and Confucianism could be argued to not be religions.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Okay, but you agree that the Constitution, as it stands, permits such a practice.

Of course! I just think it should be changed. I can see cases where it would be necessary, but like the General Welfare, it is misinterpreted. In the same way that the second amendment should have read "All people have a right to keep and to bear arms, and any government who attempts to take the personal right to bear arms shall be subject to the law, and it is legal to shoot any officer who attempts to take it from you."

However, as they saw no issues in their vision of the future, they didn't. Same with Habeus Corpus, they should have been clearer as to what constitutes "Emergency" rather than allowing whoever was in charge at that time.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Using that definition, Buddhism and Confucianism could be argued to not be religions.

Depends on what kind of Buddhism or Confucianism you practice.

 

[Cutlass]

I wish I knew more about this subject. My [limited] understanding is that the North continually provoked the South and pushed them into seceding? I don't think slavery was the real issue for the war but was just a justification for ruthless power politics that suited the bigots in the Northern states.

So the question is not just whether the South had the right to secede, because deliberate provocations designed to force such a secession were being committed against them [trying to destroy the South's economic and social base].

Not even remotely close to true. In fact, about as close to the opposite of the truth as it is possible to get.

Prior to the CV, the balance of political power in the US tended to be in the South. Federal policies were mostly in line with Southern policies. However, popular will, like with the rest of the Western thought at the time, was turning more and more against slavery. The South foresaw that the day would come when slavery would be outlawed. So first they did everything they could to put that day off. Then when they thought they couldn't do that much longer, they threw a childish hissyfit and declared secession without making any attempt to develop a legal basis for doing so.

So slavery was the one and only issue that was the cause of the war. There was never any provocation by the North. All of the rest is just apologetics.

 

[Patroklos]

Jesus this thread is a cluster.

In any case, supporting states rights does not mean supporting slavery. It didn't necessarily mean that then, is most definetly does not mean that now. The marriage of the two in modern politics is a lame attempt to relate small government people of today to things like slavery which has not been a legitimate position by anyone for 150+ years. It would be like claiming liberals want to guillotine fat cat capitalists.

Prior to the CV, the balance of political power in the US tended to be in the South. Federal policies were mostly in line with Southern policies. However, popular will, like with the rest of the Western thought at the time, was turning more and more against slavery. The South foresaw that the day would come when slavery would be outlawed. So first they did everything they could to put that day off. Then when they thought they couldn't do that much longer, they threw a childish hissyfit and declared secession without making any attempt to develop a legal basis for doing so.

So slavery was the one and only issue that was the cause of the war. There was never any provocation by the North. All of the rest is just apologetics.

Cuttlass, you are always good for a laugh. The South had the balance of power? Amazingly revisionist in all aspects. Because we all know it was the South that first attempted sessession and justified it legally, right? Right?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Not even remotely close to true. In fact, about as close to the opposite of the truth as it is possible to get.

Prior to the CV, the balance of political power in the US tended to be in the South. Federal policies were mostly in line with Southern policies. However, popular will, like with the rest of the Western thought at the time, was turning more and more against slavery. The South foresaw that the day would come when slavery would be outlawed. So first they did everything they could to put that day off. Then when they thought they couldn't do that much longer, they threw a childish hissyfit and declared secession without making any attempt to develop a legal basis for doing so.

So slavery was the one and only issue that was the cause of the war. There was never any provocation by the North. All of the rest is just apologetics.

If this were true, I would fully support the North, however, it isn't. I know slavery and State's Rights were both major issues. Slavery is simply an overriding factor for some.

Jesus this thread is a cluster.

In any case, supporting states rights does not mean supporting slavery. It didn't necessarily mean that then, is most definetly does not mean that now. The marriage of the two in modern politics is a lame attempt to relate small government people of today to things like slavery which has not been a legitimate position by anyone for 150+ years. It would be like claiming liberals want to guillotine fat cat capitalists.

Actually, the former is more unrealistic than the latter. The far left wants to violently overthrow capitalism.

 

[Miles Teg]

The claims that the civil war was fought over states rights rather than or in addition to slavery is pathetic. The "rights" in question were the rights to possess slaves; nothing more, nothing less. The two cannot be distinguished, and people trying to prop one of them up as the "moral" cause are playing rhetorical legerdemain.

 

[GhostWriter16]

The claims that the civil war was fought over states rights rather than or in addition to slavery is pathetic. The "rights" in question were the rights to possess slaves; nothing more, nothing less. The two cannot be distinguished, and people trying to prop one of them up as the "moral" cause are playing rhetorical legerdemain.

Most people consider states rights the main issue. Regardless of the confederate "State's Rights" slavery was a bad enough initution to fight against. If the Confederates were against slaves, I'd probably have supported them. I know I would now.

 

[Miles Teg]

Most people consider states rights the main issue. Regardless of the confederate "State's Rights" slavery was a bad enough initution to fight against. If the Confederates were against slaves, I'd probably have supported them. I know I would now.

The "most people" you cite are part of an ideological bubble of conservative hacks and 3rd rate philosophers. I'm not citing that out of prejudice, it's just the only circle where "states rights" is treated seriously as a root cause of the civil war. The popularization of the states rights canard was antebellum, a part of the "Lost Cause" mythology. Top members of the Confederacy cited their cause as being the protection of their slaves, so if they were protecting states rights, no one informed them.

 

[Princeps]

Using that definition, Buddhism and Confucianism could be argued to not be religions.

Yeah. They're philosophies and disciplines. But the supernatural includes, not just gods and their powers, but magical "energies", supernatural dualism and "spirits", "souls", "life forces", "rebirth", "the live beyond", and all that nonsense that the secular government should not involve itself in, except perhaps to investigate these believes if need be. I doubt that Confucianism and Buddhism, as practiced, survive scrutiny without revealing some supernatural hocus pocus that the practitioners of these "philosophies" believe in.

 

[cardgame]

Let's go ahead and get this out of the way...

State's rights were the cause of the Civil War!

Their rights to keep the institution of slavery.

Transitive property --> Slavery was the cause of the civil war

thank you kthxbai we're done with states rights.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

I am unsure ATM. The Constitution doesn't really say, and the 10th Amendment sort of implies that they can. However, if states can leave on a whim the Federal government is nothing, and at that time the Federal Government was following the constitution. With all the nasty, unconstitutional stuff going on in the United States, such as our nation having already denied 40 Million the right to live (Hint, I'm not referencing the death penalty, something I agree with) Denying citizens their God-given right to bear arms, the government pushing a religion of secularism, and other such things, I'm not quite sure I could oppose it today.

I'm not discussing the rest, as its so off topic, but number 1 was important IMO.

if you want to be taken seriously, you might wanna discuss the rest, since it applies directly to OP material. unless you can't actually defend these views and choose to run from debate.

if not, the tasks i give you are to prove that:

1.) secularism is a religion

2.) it's being pushed as a religion

3.) it's unconstitutional (ha, good luck with this one)

4.) it's even bad for our country (politics with a basis in reason, and not superstition what a terrible thing!)

also, extra credit if you can show any way you're being denied the right to bear arms.

to you, these are all valid reasons for secession today, which i believe does make them slightly more important than debating reasons a bunch of long rotted old dudes decided to play war.

 

[GhostWriter16]

if you want to be taken seriously, you might wanna discuss the rest, since it applies directly to OP material. unless you can't actually defend these views and choose to run from debate.

if not, the tasks i give you are to prove that:

1.) secularism is a religion

2.) it's being pushed as a religion

3.) it's unconstitutional (ha, good luck with this one)

4.) it's even bad for our country (politics with a basis in reason, and not superstition what a terrible thing!)

also, extra credit if you can show any way you're being denied the right to bear arms.

to you, these are all valid reasons for secession today, which i believe does make them slightly more important than debating reasons a bunch of long rotted old dudes decided to play war.

1. Secularism must be taken on faith, the assumption there is no God

2. Its taught in public school

3. Freedom of Religion

4. Well, I'm a Christian. This is tougher to prove, I just think it is wrong.

5. Arms means Firearms. Gun Control is illegal.

 

[Princeps]

1. Secularism must be taken on faith, the assumption there is no God

This is a nonsense argument. It takes no faith to believe in secularism. Secularists do not say that there is no god. There is no reason to believe in the existence of god and there is no evidence to prove his existence. Therefore, to say that you don't believe in god or believe that his existence is extremely unlikely isn't a statement of faith.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

1. Secularism must be taken on faith, the assumption there is no God

2. Its taught in public school

3. Freedom of Religion

4. Well, I'm a Christian. This is tougher to prove, I just think it is wrong.

5. Arms means Firearms. Gun Control is illegal.

1. faith placed in reason beats faith in superstition

2. wah. that's not forcing. try again.

3. and that's still intact. try again.

4. most christians in this country approve of secular governing.

5. the right to bear arms is not the right to not have to prove you're insane or a felon.

This is a nonsense argument. Secularism doesn't say that there is no god, it says that there is no reason to believe in the existence of god, and that there is not reason why we should let the imaginary entity determine policy.

no, no, let's roll with this. just watch.

a religion is something that requires faith, i have faith the sun will rise tomorrow, i've just created a religion based around the sun, i've just founded all religions!

 

[Tee Kay]

5. Arms means Firearms. Gun Control is illegal.

You know, even in the United States there is some form of gun control.

 

[Methos]

Lincoln stated many times leading up to the outbreak and during the early years of the war that the conflict was strictly a struggle to maintain the union. Slavery was only a minor issue until it was used as a political maneuvering in order to block GB and France from stepping in on the side of the cotton producing states later in the war.

This is correct, though as I recall, an additional effect that Lincoln desired was to draw Main into providing troops, as up to that point, they didn't see a reason to be involved. I could be mistaken on the state though. At the time there were foreign troops in Canada and Lincoln was afraid that nations in Europe would recoginize the CSA as independent and then ally with them. At that time, the Union wouldn't have survived an attack from the north. Therefore, in 1863 Lincoln for the first time, publicly stated that slavery was an issue in order to keep Europe out of the war.

Also note, that when Lincoln made slavery illegal, he only did so in the southern states.

Also, the Civil War had its beginnings from what is referred to as the Terror Acts of 1828, 1830, and 1832.

 

[Methos]

The claims that the civil war was fought over states rights rather than or in addition to slavery is pathetic. The "rights" in question were the rights to possess slaves; nothing more, nothing less. The two cannot be distinguished, and people trying to prop one of them up as the "moral" cause are playing rhetorical legerdemain.

I find this hilarious. The problem started much earlier and it originally had nothing to do with slavery. Was slavery a part of it? Yes, but it wasn't the main reason. I would suggest you read more on the cause of the Civil War.

I took a semester course on the Civil War once and it was very interesting. I was rather shocked to find out how much of what I originally believed and was taught in school that was wrong. I also feel that many feel so strongly about slavery that they fail to research the subject without bias. Just my opinion.

 

[Aegis]

Also note, that when Lincoln made slavery illegal, he only did so in the southern states.

The Emancipation Proclamation didn't make slavery illegal, but permanently freed slaves within those states. It happened after the war broke out and was used as a tool to pressure southern states to re-join the union. If he applied it to the northern union as well, there was the danger that several additional states would secede as a result. The EP eventually led to abolishing slavery in every state.