| Blogs > GavinLS2 > The Heretic |
|
Was gonna post this as a comment on Yaya's blog, but decided to give it a voice of its own. The South was gravely and immorally wrong about slavery, and I'm glad it was banished on the North American continent. If Canada or Mexico wanted to instill it in their laws, I'd suggest we wage war on them too. However! Slavery was not the reason that the US was once at war with the Confederacy. That war was waged over the issue of secession. And as such, it was an act of oppression which forced individuals and States to comply with their Northern neighbors demands to remain part of a group they no longer wished to enjoin. The South was 100% justified to make a stand for States Rights! The ONLY reason the North was justified in defeating them at the time, was because the US could not, and should not, tolerate slavery on the North American continent. Any government or society on the North American continent must NEVER be allowed to mandate by law the unjust suppression or oppression of individual citizens. Nor should any government be allowed to mandate extra and exclusive favors or advantages to one person(s) over other(s). More and more I'm leaning towards favoring a dissolution of the Union, and instead I'd propose a system of 50 separate governments which individually may or may not choose to form treaty associations for their mutual protections, much like NATO. The Civil War was about secession. Back in the 1860s, perhaps the Union was a noble institution worth maintaining. But now it's become an over-bearing albatross run by and for the benefit of a few arrogant elite classes who believe they can and should impose their will on the rest of us. JMHO. GBU, Gavin |
|||
8/4/2013 2:33 pm |
Hadn't thought about this in a while but definitely remember it when we studied "The War Between the States" in school. Spiritwoman ^i^
| ||
|
Your explanation of the civil war is too superficial. Let's follow this to its source. The reason for southern secession was? The answer is that the re-election of Lincoln brought to southern states awareness that laws against slavery were going to be enforced. These southern states did not want to give up their right to exercising and expanding slavery. The reason that the southern states felt that their state's rights were being infringed was? The answer was that the federal government abolished the practice of slavery. The explanation that I have given is understandably brief and misses some of the details but secession was brought on by slavery. Now, it's NOT any particular State(s) that are trying to impose slavery. It's the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!!! Therefore, if any State wishes to secede from the Union it should! ANY form of slavery is wrong! Not just your narrow interpretation of it. GBU, Gavin
| ||
|
You're wrong. GBU, Gavin
| ||
|
Can't argue with this. Secession would obviously entail many hardships for a State that chooses it. But this same nation was founded by people willing to endure hardships for freedom. GBU, Gavin
| ||
|
I would prefer the United States get their act together, but I think that time has passed. There are too many divisions on too many fronts. There is no civility and neither side trusts the other. I think it can be done without war, there really is no need to get out there and kill each other. GBU, Gavin
| ||
|
Although slavery was an issue that the abolitionists would have you believe was the reason for the Civil War, it was just one of the many issues. The issue at the time was states rights versus a strong central government. Prior to the Civil War the federal government acted on behalf of the States and was granted it's power by the states. It was the Civil War that made the States act on the behalf of the federal government and their only power was granted by the federal government. Those that would have you believe that the Civil War was caused by slavery also believe it's that tail that wags the dog.
| ||
|
Although slavery was an issue that the abolitionists would have you believe was the reason for the Civil War, it was just one of the many issues. The issue at the time was states rights versus a strong central government. Prior to the Civil War the federal government acted on behalf of the States and was granted it's power by the states. It was the Civil War that made the States act on the behalf of the federal government and their only power was granted by the federal government. Those that would have you believe that the Civil War was caused by slavery also believe it's that tail that wags the dog. GBU, Gavin
| ||
|
My comment clarifies your wrong statements which read as follows: "Slavery was not the reason that the US was once at war with the Confederacy. That war was waged over the issue of secession." and still later: "The Civil War was about secession." The rest of your blog shows how little you really know and understand about a representative democracy. GBU, Gavin
| ||
|
Bobbi, your statements " The answer is that the re-election of Lincoln brought to southern states awareness that laws against slavery were going to be enforced", and "The reason that the southern states felt that their state's rights were being infringed was? The answer was that the federal government abolished the practice of slavery." Are wrong as the first state to succeed was South Carolina in December of 1860 some three months before Abraham Lincoln took the oath of office for his first term. Lincolns reelection was in 1864. The 13th Amendment to our Constitution, which abolishes slavery was adopted in December of 1865 some 9 months after Lincolns death. GBU, Gavin
| ||
|
Thanks for clarifying this BB. I didn't know the exact dates for every piece of legislative event, but I knew that the South attempted to secede before the Emancipation Proclamation. GBU, Gavin The war actually started after Lincoln won the election, next the South seceded, then Lincoln was inaugurated hoping to prevent war and maintain the Union, and soon thereafter Confederate troops commenced military action against Federal troops stationed in the Confederate territories. It was then that Lincoln mobilized Union troops to retake Fort Sumter, thus putting an end to the South's secession, and war was officially on. I'd suggest folks search Wikiped under "American Civil War". There you'll find that Lincoln only made the abolition of slavery an issue or "goal" of the Civil War AFTER that war had already begun when the South inflicted military action against Northern posts in an effort to enforce the South's previously declared secession. Thus, the abolition of slavery was only a later supplemental and secondary justification for the Civil War. Secession remained the original and main reason. (It is interesting to note that neither side ever issued an official Declaration of War. But since such an action is reserved only to apply towards other nations, it's understandable why Lincoln didn't seek a formal declaration because he would have had to declare the South a separate nation in order to do that, which would have given the South exactly what they wanted. What I don't understand is why Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy chose military action first, and yet never issued a formal Declaration of War? Maybe some of you better historians can answer that question for me. But perhaps it's fortunate for history that the South thus acted so impulsively. Otherwise, the issue may have dragged on for many more years. --And THAT is why the Civil War ultimately advanced freedom for all mankind. Lincoln's first Presidential initiative sought to preserve the Union. But in the process, a side benefit was freedom for the slaves.) GBU all, Gavin
| ||
|
Obviously you haven't studied history. GBU, Gavin
| ||
|
Bobbi, I deleted your last comment cos you just want to keep going in circles. By your logic, we could keep going back into prior "causes" until we could blame the Pilgrims for the Civil War. And it has NOTHING to do with the point I'm asserting in my original post!!! That is: Secession is a fair and justifiable option for any State that wishes to leave the Union, and as such it should be recognizes as the right of any State to secede. GBU, Gavin
| ||
|
Hi Skariff Again I won't dispute that history. I know it to be true because the dispute over slavery almost prevented the Constitution from being ratified, and the records of the debate prove that most (not all) of the Founding Fathers took pains to create a system in which the abolition of slavery could one day become a reality. But it merely restates the fact that a prior controversy existed about slavery. But if that were such a motivating force, why did it take almost a century before the Emancipation? Emancipation ONLY came about AFTER the war had already been started by the south over the issue of secession. GBU, Gavin
| ||
|
Now we cope with the war on women. I think back on the civil war and I wonder, why is there such an obvious war on American women, and why do we have 82 separate pieces of republican legislation from across the nation to suppress the vote of minorities. Why? Why? Why? All that suffering in our fight for civil rights. As Colin Powell's deputy in the State Department said on national TV, the republican party is full of racists. The party of Lincoln! To align with these folks today is like wearing a neon sign. GBU, Gavin
| ||
8/5/2013 8:13 am |
I claim no expertise on the Second American Civil War. However, the argument that the issue was states' rights, not slavery, reminds me of a similar argument in another area. Back in the old Usenet days, the pro-smoking advocates often argued that smoking didn't kill anyone because you will never find a death certificate that shows smoking as the cause of death. The southern states would not have started a shooting war over an abstract idea such as states' rights unless there was some burning issue that concerned them. What was the main gripe of the southern states? Votes for women? Federal annexation of Mexican territory? Whiskey running to Indians in Canada from northern states? Perhaps someone could enlighten me on this.
| ||
8/5/2013 8:57 am |
Bobbi, I deleted your last comment cos you just want to keep going in circles. By your logic, we could keep going back into prior "causes" until we could blame the Pilgrims for the Civil War. And it has NOTHING to do with the point I'm asserting in my original post!!! That is: Secession is a fair and justifiable option for any State that wishes to leave the Union, and as such it should be recognizes as the right of any State to secede. GBU, Gavin
| ||
|
rentier, it's like this..... Prior to the United states there were thirteen colonies, no central government, the colonies created the central government for the benefit of each colony. After seventy years it became evident to the Southern states that the federal government no longer believed in each states power to self rule. It took seventy years for the federal government to whittle the power away until the states realized that as individual states they would have no power of self determination. The federal government used it's power of laws, regulations and taxation to circumvent the power the states had known for seventy years. With the growing population of the northern states and the growing population of the West being controlled by the northern states it was quite evident that southern self determination was soon to become a thing of the past. Slavery was certainly one of the issues of self determination, However, it wasn't the only issue. it was the whistle of the teapot...but not the boiling water.
| ||
|
Slavery was the whistle of the teapot....but not the boiling water! Sometimes, I gotta wonder where I come up with this stuff. It's certainly not until after I write it, that I know what it means, After reading it, in this case, it means exactly what the whole Civil War was about.
| ||
8/5/2013 4:04 pm |
Jiminy: But was slavery the main issue for the South?
| ||
|
Good question. I think I'd gravitate towards one of those States that was first to seek independence and had established conservative values among the populace. Texas comes to mind. GBU, Gavin
| ||
|
Rentier, Only a small portion of the population of the south were slave owners, yet the south was fully behind the idea that whether or not you were for slavery or against it, that each state had to have the right and power to choose for themselves. The war fought so that the northern states couldn't dictate to the southern states, whatever they would deem appropriate or inappropriate. The divisions that existed between the north and the south was far deeper than just the slave issue
| ||
|
LOL Bob! Give them time, and I'm sure they'll come to that conclusion! GBU, Gavin
| ||
|
Hi Alpha Thanks for commenting. Interesting that you know your family history so well. GBU, Gavin
| ||
|
May assume you will not object when I delete one of your comments from a blog of mine because you go off topic? GBU, Gavin
| ||
|
I claim no expertise on the Second American Civil War. However, the argument that the issue was states' rights, not slavery, reminds me of a similar argument in another area. Back in the old Usenet days, the pro-smoking advocates often argued that smoking didn't kill anyone because you will never find a death certificate that shows smoking as the cause of death. The southern states would not have started a shooting war over an abstract idea such as states' rights unless there was some burning issue that concerned them. What was the main gripe of the southern states? Votes for women? Federal annexation of Mexican territory? Whiskey running to Indians in Canada from northern states? Perhaps someone could enlighten me on this. True, slavery was the issue that people on both sides had long been debating. But it was never banned by Lincoln or Congress until it was tossed into the mix AFTER the war about secession had already begun. And at the time, Lincoln used the issue to gain further public support for his military actions to prevent the South from breaking up the Union. Would Lincoln have ever sent troops to enforce abolition in the south if they had not tried to secede? It's doubtful, because at his own inauguration he declared that he had no intention of going to war, even tho the South had already begun capturing small Federal postings there. It took the much larger event, the Fort Sumter attack, to motivate him to mobilize the militia, and even at that point his initial intention was only to retake the fort. So the fact is, it just as easily could be claimed that the Civil War was over votes for women, annexation of Mexico, whiskey running, etc. if any of those issues had been contemporary disputes at the time. If the South had chosen to secede over either of those questions, and had attacked Federal troops garrisoned there, then the war was inevitable. GBU, Gavin
|
×
×