An intellectual exercise? Is that what you call referring to me as a Yankee traitor, refusing to acknowledge primary evidence to support my arguments and ignoring some of the more relevant points I’ve made?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I just can’t accept the premise that “there’s nothing to talk about so let’s pour gasoline on this fire and ramp up the conflagration. We’ll just have to burn the sonuvabitch down.” [/quote]
Hey, it’s your hypothetical thinking a good talking would have helped, Oprah. :> So, seriously, what should have been discussed?
Because your timing is suspect. The Union didn’t engage in “total war” until the latter part of the war - prior to that, there was no “burn it all down!”. There was fairly conventional warfare - recall that the first battle had spectators with picnic baskets on the hillside watching.
There was no “burn it down” approach - Lincoln’s approach was little different than Washington’s in the Whiskey Rebellion. So what is on the table to negotiate?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Cut it out Push. I’m finding myself agreeing with you far too much.[/quote]
Speaking of Yankees, I’d have surely thought youda been wearin’ the blue uniform in this debate as there are a preponderance of Bible colleges south of the Mason-Dixon line.[/quote]
Indeed there are. But it would have been those yellow, blue-belly sons of bitches that would have been sauntering around my property, pillaging my crops and livestock.
Not cool.
We can discuss the civil war and how legal or illegal the actions of each side were in relation to the constitution and original intent forever. I hope we do.
Having said that, I sincerely doubt that either side had uppermost in mind how faithful they were being to the constitution. They each had an agenda they believed important enough to do what it took to achieve. I have found myself sympathizing with some aspects of each side for years which frustrates me to death because I hate having firm positions on subjects of such import elude me.
Slavery remains the defining issue for me still. I shudder to think what this continent would be like if I were living as the northern neighbor of a slave nation. I will make a confession that I suspect many share, but few will say out loud. When I’m alone with myself thinking certain things over I do in fact believe that there are instances in which the ends justify the means. Wholly illegal and prosecutable acts that should indeed be so prosecuted if found out, but if forced to tell the truth I would hope never were.
Example? Supplying arms to an ally by means of procedural and budgetary trickery without or even contrary to congressional approval when national security or even serious interests are at stake. (Ollie North?) If discovered it most definitely should be pursued, but I would be quite content not ever finding out.
The point? I can’t get past how vital ending slavery in this nation was and can forgive quite a bit, if needed, to have seen that happen.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
We can discuss the civil war and how legal or illegal the actions of each side were in relation to the constitution and original intent forever. I hope we do.
Having said that, I sincerely doubt that either side had uppermost in mind how faithful they were being to the constitution. They each had an agenda they believed important enough to do what it took to achieve. I have found myself sympathizing with some aspects of each side for years which frustrates me to death because I hate having firm positions on subjects of such import elude me.
Slavery remains the defining issue for me still. I shudder to think what this continent would be like if I were living as the northern neighbor of a slave nation. I will make a confession that I suspect many share, but few will say out loud. When I’m alone with myself thinking certain things over I do in fact believe that there are instances in which the ends justify the means. Wholly illegal and prosecutable acts that should indeed be so prosecuted if found out, but if forced to tell the truth I would hope never were.
Example? Supplying arms to an ally by means of procedural and budgetary trickery without or even contrary to congressional approval when national security or even serious interests are at stake. (Ollie North?) If discovered it most definitely should be pursued, but I would be quite content not ever finding out.
The point? I can’t get past how vital ending slavery in this nation was and can forgive quite a bit, if needed, to have seen that happen.
[/quote]
I think the last sentence of your post should just about end this thread. It’s true, we can go back and forth on the different aspects of this issue, but it all boils down to slavery. One side stretched/abused the Constitution (depending on what side of the issue you’re on) to destroy slavery, the other more or less did the same to preserve it. We can argue for weeks on end about which side’s actions were a more egregious abuse of the Constitution without really getting anywhere, as we’ve all proven.
But slavery is still the reason this argument exists. Regardless of the legality of secession, it happened because the South wanted no part of a President/country whose aim was to stop slavery from spreading to the territories. That same President ultimately came to understand that to stop the spread of slavery meant to eradicate it entirely from this country. To say that one side acted 100% justly and the other did not is a fallacy.
However, the two sides were not acting with an equal amount of (un)justness either. The Constitution is the law of the land here, a sacred document if ever there was one. But it is NOT the final arbiter in determining what is just and what is not. If there was any language at all in the Constitution that even remotely allowed for any possibility at all for a state whose economic prosperity rested on the backs of slaves, then it should be destroyed and rewritten. THAT is the spirit of the Founding Fathers and of revolution in general; to spread freedom for human beings, not institutions.
When all is said and done, the Constitution, and this country in general, exists as a testament to all of the best qualities of mankind. The right for a race of people to live like human beings rather than like animals trumps strict adherence to the Constitution every time. Arguing about which side was more “just” or arguing which side acted with more righteousness or even arguing why the war itself started in the manner in which ALL of us have argued ignores the issue of slavery itself.
In short, if I had to choose between wiping my ass with the Constitution or preserving its integrity at the cost of an entire race, I’ll wipe my ass with it every single time. And that does NOT make me a bad American by any stretch. The day that being a good, Constitution-worshipping American mandates that I accept a state’s right to secede in order to preserve slavery is a dark day for all of us.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
<<< A long well reasoned post >>>[/quote]
Here’s my take on secession carrying the principle into that arena. I am inclined to surmise that the major thinkers at the founding and following were not generally envisioning a legal path to secession. I am also inclined to envisioning myself supporting secession under the right circumstances whether the founders envisioned it or not, ironically to preserve or recover the, in my view, even more weighty principles they left us.
EDIT, before anybody declares me a fool, I do not see secession of any state or states anywhere in America’s foreseeable future. I am merely stating my view.
There is often the psychology among the violent and self-righteous who want someone to stay with them that, “I’d rather kill her than allow her to leave me.” And they mean it.
Whether there is any psychological parallel here or not is a matter to be left to each person considering it. Obviously there is no possible manner of proof one way or the other.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
We can discuss the civil war and how legal or illegal the actions of each side were in relation to the constitution and original intent forever. I hope we do.
Having said that, I sincerely doubt that either side had uppermost in mind how faithful they were being to the constitution. They each had an agenda they believed important enough to do what it took to achieve. I have found myself sympathizing with some aspects of each side for years which frustrates me to death because I hate having firm positions on subjects of such import elude me.
Slavery remains the defining issue for me still. I shudder to think what this continent would be like if I were living as the northern neighbor of a slave nation. I will make a confession that I suspect many share, but few will say out loud. When I’m alone with myself thinking certain things over I do in fact believe that there are instances in which the ends justify the means. Wholly illegal and prosecutable acts that should indeed be so prosecuted if found out, but if forced to tell the truth I would hope never were.
Example? Supplying arms to an ally by means of procedural and budgetary trickery without or even contrary to congressional approval when national security or even serious interests are at stake. (Ollie North?) If discovered it most definitely should be pursued, but I would be quite content not ever finding out.
The point? I can’t get past how vital ending slavery in this nation was and can forgive quite a bit, if needed, to have seen that happen.[/quote]
I think you are hitting on the point. After we wade through all the revisionist nonsense - “it was about a tariff!” (it wasn’t) and “the Civil War was about big government versus liberty!” (it wasn’t) and “the South were the true defenders of liberty!” (they weren’t) - we get to the core issue of slavery.
The Slave Power seceded to preserve slavery. Period. The Slave Power used whatever was handy to advance the idea that black people needed to be in chains - pro-big government and federal expansion, pro-states’ rights, pro-secession, anti-secession. It was preservation of slavery at all costs, including disunion.
If you read the source documents, it was clear that the dealbreaker was the outrageous idea that blacks could be given equal rights. Calhoun and Stephens both base the entire defense (and thus need to secede) on the positive good theory of slavery.
And while we think these ideas loathesome - and they are - let’s be fair and give them credit for being honest. They hated the concept that blacks could be equal to whites. They thought society would explode under such a base theory. They also believed that their way of life - the hierarchy of privilege on the backs of an enslaved race - was even an entitlement from Providence to a certain extent (but mostly rank self-interest). They were dead wrong, but they were honest about it and thought a revolution was justified to protect these ideas.
The neo-Confederates whistle past all of this, because they can’t dare confront it if they want to keep up their support for the Confederacy’s “states’ rights” platform. They never touch it, even though were you to ask a member of the Slave Power at the time, they would unashamedly tell you preservation of slavery was the driving motive of secession (and, prior to that, the attempt to expand federal government to compel non-slave states to observe the law of slavery, the exact opposite of a “states’ rights” approach).
Lincoln and the Republicans had moral force on their side, but merely wanted to legislate slavery away in increments. The Slave Power knew it, and the election of 1860 sealed that fate.
The Slave Power also knew that secession would bring about a military response. On the taruiff, Southern states made the same argument thirty years prior ot get what they wanted, and General Jackson called their bluff. Thus, despite our revisionist neo-Confederates pulling a Captain Renault-esque (of Casablanca) “I am shocked - shocked - to discover that a federal government would use force to prevent disunion!”, the Slave Power knew the potential consequences and dared Lincoln to do as Washington and Jackson did before. Problem is, Lincoln, too, called their bluff.
While the war was not fought exclusively to extinguish slavery - it was begun to preserve the Union - Lincoln’s maxim that we couldn’t be half-slave and half-free was entirely correct, and I think this, from a letter from a captain in Sherman’s Army of the West, captures the sentiment you are talking about, Tiribulus:
We could not resist the conviction that a civilization in which a score of lives are impoverished and embittered, are blasted and debased and damned, in order that one life may be made sweeter, is a system of wrong that no language can properly condemn.
As I noted before, American slavery was the country’s first experiment in the rudiments of socialism - the principle of “you work and I eat” - and it always seems ridiculous to see libertarians stand in defense of the Slave Power. But, as you note, ending slavery in this country as vital, and the South insisted that it not be done democratically and peacefully. The Slave Power knew they were getting a war to defend their “right” to slavery, and by God, they got it all right.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
As I noted before, American slavery was the country’s first experiment in the rudiments of socialism - the principle of “you work and I eat” - and it always seems ridiculous to see libertarians stand in defense of the Slave Power. [/quote]
Who is defending slave power? I certainly wasn’t. I have not come across one post (perhaps I missed it?), where slavery is defended, only the South’s right to leave the Union is being defended.
And as I already stated, it wasn’t worth the slaughter of 600,000 men to maintain the Union.
In hindsight, Thunder, do you think it was worth it?
@ Thunderbolt
I don’t see Lincoln’s personal motives being quite as noble as is commonly portrayed.
Regardless of Lincoln’s personal motives who here really wishes the south would have won?
Slavery was an abomination. A screaming contradiction to everything the revolution claimed to be about and a horrific crime against humanity nearly on par with some of the tyrannical despotic regimes we universally condemn.
In the end, however it was accomplished, it’s abolition was a national moral imperative. The southern blacks Declaration of Independence, had they written one, would have made Jefferson’s complaints against George III look like girlish whining.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Who is defending slave power? I certainly wasn’t. I have not come across one post (perhaps I missed it?), where slavery is defended, only the South’s right to leave the Union is being defended.[/quote]
See the capitalized letters on “Slave Power”? I am not referring to the power to enslave, I am talking about the plantation class that politically pushed Southern states into secession - the Slave Power.
Yup, most certainly.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
@ Thunderbolt
I don’t see Lincoln’s personal motives being quite as noble as is commonly portrayed.[/quote]
I don’t think he was a saint, but do tell - what motives did he have that were not as noble as you commonly see in portrayals?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Who is defending slave power? I certainly wasn’t. I have not come across one post (perhaps I missed it?), where slavery is defended, only the South’s right to leave the Union is being defended.[/quote]
See the capitalized letters on “Slave Power”? I am not referring to the power to enslave, I am talking about the plantation class that politically pushed Southern states into secession - the Slave Power.
Yup, most certainly. [/quote]
You are a piece of work, aren’t you?
I guess men having their blood and guts scattered over parts of the US was worth it because, well, they were not your grandfather, father, brother, or uncle, eh?
I knew your answer before I even asked it.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
You are a piece of work, aren’t you?
I guess men having their blood and guts scattered over parts of the US was worth it because, well, they were not your grandfather, father, brother, or uncle, eh?
I knew your answer before I even asked it.[/quote]
This is why you aren’t any fun to debate with. You’re a rank emotionalist.
Imagine the consequences to a dissolution of the Union - endless internecine war between the Union, the Confederacy, within the Confederacy itself (both seceding abolitionist counties and black insurrections and the eventual combination of both), and intervening foreign powers.
The loss of the Union would have plunged the continent into more warfare and anarchy.
Get past the childish hysterics and consider the issue of alternatives. The issue doesn’t cleave perfectly down the line into an easy “good scenario/awful scenario” like you need to sleep at night. There were harsh truths and trade-offs in play at all times.
I am not saying you have to agree with me, just grow up and take the issue on without the histrionics. If you can - my expectation is pretty low.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Dustin wrote:
You are a piece of work, aren’t you?
I guess men having their blood and guts scattered over parts of the US was worth it because, well, they were not your grandfather, father, brother, or uncle, eh?
I knew your answer before I even asked it.[/quote]
Emotionalist? Okay.
You’re jumping to conclusions and have no idea whether this would happen or not. At that time most people looked at each state as it’s own individual country. There was no “united states” as we know it today. All those possible scenarios you mentioned could have happened before the Civil War and they didn’t. It’s a big risk, at a rate of 600,000 men, to justify a war because those scenarios might occur.
There are indeed all sorts of alternatives or events that could have occurred had the Civil War not taken place. We’ll never no for sure though. We do know, however, what did happen because of the Civil War.
“Harsh truths” are one thing, whole sale slaughter is something completely different. Certainly, I’m not the only person that sees the difference.
[quote]
I am not saying you have to agree with me, just grow up and take the issue on without the histrionics. If you can - my expectation is pretty low.[/quote]
I’m grown up alright. So much so that I have seen first hand what war can do to people, or as you would call it, “harsh truths”.
I’ll “grow up” if you drop your condescending douchieness, if you can. My expectations are low.