People live in democracies because they see it as being in their self-interest. Indeed, non-democratic societies usually tell their citizens to act against their own self-interest —that’s why they have to use force to retain their citizens (Berlin Wall, for ex).
When citizens perceive that it is no longer in their best interest to remain in a society, they leave if possible. If the vast majority of people in an area decide to leave, they may simply withdraw from the democracy.
A dictatorship forces citizens to remain in the society. It lives on victims.
The Southerners perceived that it was in their self-interest to leave the Union. Since secession is not forbidden (what is not delegated to the Federal gov’t remains the perogative of the state), they left. Lincoln used tactics displayed by totalitarian regimes to force them to remain.
I’ve thought about that question for a couple days, Varq.
I have no set rule for that, and I don’t think it is possible to have one. It’s not like I could say, “Well, if this happened, I would rebel, but if this happened then this, than I wouldn’t.” You know that the course of history is rarely so clean cut, and there are a million factors that go into every revolution or rebellion.
For the most part, you rarely see rebellions unless the governed are in really terrible shape. France in 1789, Russia in 1917, etc. were caused because people were starving in the streets, and that’s what it takes to move that brute stregth at the bottom of society to do something (I think I stole that from Emerson).
It takes a complete collapse of governmental protection, and a complete lack of basic services to cause something like that in the first place (most of the time, not all of the time.)
What Thunder was saying was interesting. My only qualm was that he makes it seem like losing the right of self government is something that would be blatant and obvious, and everyone would stand up at once against it. “Losing self government” is, unfortunately, a relative term. I feel that we are losing self government right now because of all the PATRIOT Act provisos, and the way that our glorious leader has said more or less that he doesn’t care what the people of the country say, he’s going to do what he wants anyway. That, to me, is losing self government, when your leader tells you your opinion is not important. Now, I know many of you don’t feel that way, and I understand that, I’m just making a point.
What the Civil War was about was slavery. As a slaveholding society, the South had some balls complaining about being oppressed - the hypocrisy inherent in this is so blatant it hurts.
America in 1776 was also a hotbed of hypocrisy- had I been as Englishmen reading the Declaration of Independence, I would have found it truly ironic that the very idealists who wrote this piece went home and fucked their slaves every other night. However, 1776 was different, and incomparable, to the Civil War because no matter how bad the hypocrisy, they were still trying to break away from a moonarchy, and get away from the despotic governments that had ruled the world since the beginning of time. If they couldn’t do that and free the slaves at the same time…well, you gotta take baby steps sometimes, and be pragmatic. We all know the Southern colonies wouldn’t sign the Declaration when Jefferson threw in that bit about freeing the slaves…
So my answer is- depends on the time and the place. But it would certainly have to reach the point where the government was no longer an instrument of the people, so much as a battering ram for the powerful.
The Southerners perceived that it was in their self-interest to leave the Union. Since secession is not forbidden (what is not delegated to the Federal gov’t remains the perogative of the state), they left. Lincoln used tactics displayed by totalitarian regimes to force them to remain. [/quote]
You keep going in circles. I don’t think anyone disagrees that the South thought it was in their self-interest to leave an increasingly anti-slavery Union.
The question is: could they have done so by secession?
You are back to square one with a conclusory statement that secession is ok - but you have not addressed the arguments against secession. You assume it to be there, even though there have been arguments presented here that that theory can’t possibly be right. You don’t have to believe them, but you can’t ignore them.
I have always maintained that the Southern states could have called a constitutional convention to withdraw. Would they have been able to to? Maybe, maybe not - but that would have been a proper exercise of their power.
As for “Lincoln the totalitarian” - the font of his power came from that totalitarian document the U.S. Constitution.
What Thunder was saying was interesting. My only qualm was that he makes it seem like losing the right of self government is something that would be blatant and obvious, and everyone would stand up at once against it. “Losing self government” is, unfortunately, a relative term. I feel that we are losing self government right now because of all the PATRIOT Act provisos, and the way that our glorious leader has said more or less that he doesn’t care what the people of the country say, he’s going to do what he wants anyway. That, to me, is losing self government, when your leader tells you your opinion is not important. Now, I know many of you don’t feel that way, and I understand that, I’m just making a point.[/quote]
I like what Claire Wolfe has to say about the subject: “America is at that awkward stage. It’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.”
[quote]
America in 1776 was also a hotbed of hypocrisy- had I been as Englishmen reading the Declaration of Independence, I would have found it truly ironic that the very idealists who wrote this piece went home and fucked their slaves every other night. [/quote]
I wonder. I imagine the Englishmen in England had about the same opinion of African slaves (certainly no black African was “created equal” to a white Englishman) as the Englishmen in America did.
Yes, 1776 was different, not only for the reasons you’ve mentioned, but also because the colonists were under no obligation to stay in the colonies, and there was a whole continent of free land not controlled by Britain. The South had nowhere to go.
“Give me liberty or give me death,” said Patrick Henry, raising the rhetorical stakes and praying no one would call him on it. Yet, the average man at the time lived in near perfect freedom. There were few books and few laws on them. And fewer people to enforce them. Henry, if he wanted to do so, could have merely crossed the Blue Ridge west of Charlottesville and never seen another government agent again. --Bill Bonner, The Idea of America
Then again, perhaps the Civil War could have been avoided altogether if all the Southern planters had just picked up and moved to California. The climate was right for cotton, tobacco, and sugarbeet, and there was plenty of virtually free labor just south of the border: no slaves required.
Thank you, Irish and Thunder, for your very thoughtful answers. I have gone back and forth on this question myself, asking myself at what point I would stop working within the system and would start shooting the bastards. I have spent almost my entire adult life outside of the United States, but I love America deeply, and would probably come back if it meant being on the right side of a revolution… the right side being the one that would uphold the Constitution, and which in my estimation would provide the most personal liberty.
[quote]shamus wrote:
I’m not racist, but the war was over taxes. The history books tell us the primary reason for the war was to free the slaves. Yeah right. Politics have been corrupt since, oh, about 1826. The day (July 4th) Jefferson and Madison both died.[/quote]
Politics have been corrupt, since, oh, about 4000 BC.
The Southerners perceived that it was in their self-interest to leave the Union. Since secession is not forbidden (what is not delegated to the Federal gov’t remains the perogative of the state), they left. Lincoln used tactics displayed by totalitarian regimes to force them to remain.
You keep going in circles. I don’t think anyone disagrees that the South thought it was in their self-interest to leave an increasingly anti-slavery Union.
The question is: could they have done so by secession?
You are back to square one with a conclusory statement that secession is ok - but you have not addressed the arguments against secession. You assume it to be there, even though there have been arguments presented here that that theory can’t possibly be right. You don’t have to believe them, but you can’t ignore them.
I have always maintained that the Southern states could have called a constitutional convention to withdraw. Would they have been able to to? Maybe, maybe not - but that would have been a proper exercise of their power.
As for “Lincoln the totalitarian” - the font of his power came from that totalitarian document the U.S. Constitution.[/quote]
Well, it appears to me that we have a situation similar to a breakaway province being forced to return to the fold, at gunpoint. I also don’t see how Lincoln’s power came from the Constitution — blockading ports w/o a declaration of war, military tribunals, eliminating HC.
And seriously, in his Inaugural Address, he says that the Founders MEANT to disallow secession. If they meant to forbid it, then (a) they’d have said so (b) the states would never have agreed to sign up — they had just got away from a dominating central government.
If you can point to where in the Constitution it says that secession (not rebellion) is not allowed, then I’ll agree with you. But I can’t see where they’d sign up for that. Hell, half of them would have reached for their swords at the suggestion of such a thing. Madison himself rips the shit out of the suggestion (see previous post).
It depends on many factors, of course, including why Jersey would be seceding… but it is unlikely that I would turn against my home.
Oooops…
Would you even fight for it?
Against other Americans?
If those Americans invaded NJ?[/quote]
Like I said, it depends on the circumstance. If I thought New Jersey was right, and it was something that would not be resolved, I would go with them. If it was something I considered a crime, I would go with the Union.
No piece of dirt has my allegiance just because I walk on it everyday.
Well, it appears to me that we have a situation similar to a breakaway province being forced to return to the fold, at gunpoint. I also don’t see how Lincoln’s power came from the Constitution — blockading ports w/o a declaration of war, military tribunals, eliminating HC.
[/quote]
It says he can suspend habeas corpus in times of rebellion. Says it right in the Constitution.
We are also having military tribunals right now, for the current war, are we not? They still wrong?
You cannot declare war on your own country- it’s called putting down a rebellion. These are simple points HH. I expected more from you.
Without a dominating central government, democracy fails. The states are not, and should not be, more powerful than the Union. The Articles of Confederation provided for a pussy central government… and America got what, eight years out of it? And the Constitution has lasted for how long now?
Rebellion is not something that can be outlawed- the whole point of rebelling is to destroy the existing system of laws.
However, to say that Lincoln was not justified in trying to keep them is ridiculous.
The South had a fair shot to win that war many times over, but they were crushed. Legally.
Without a dominating central government, democracy fails. The states are not, and should not be, more powerful than the Union. The Articles of Confederation provided for a pussy central government… and America got what, eight years out of it? And the Constitution has lasted for how long now?
[/quote]
I know a small, heavily armed country in the Alps that calls BS on this.
Without a dominating central government, democracy fails. The states are not, and should not be, more powerful than the Union. The Articles of Confederation provided for a pussy central government… and America got what, eight years out of it? And the Constitution has lasted for how long now?
I know a small, heavily armed country in the Alps that calls BS on this.
Without a dominating central government, democracy fails. The states are not, and should not be, more powerful than the Union. The Articles of Confederation provided for a pussy central government… and America got what, eight years out of it? And the Constitution has lasted for how long now?
I know a small, heavily armed country in the Alps that calls BS on this.
Key word there: “Small”.[/quote]
Ha! I knew it.
There is no reason though, that if they can leave each other alone, though they are practically sitting on each other, that you could not do that too, since you have a whole continent to spread out.
There is really no reason for Washingtonians to decide how Nebrascans should live.
Without a dominating central government, democracy fails. The states are not, and should not be, more powerful than the Union. The Articles of Confederation provided for a pussy central government… and America got what, eight years out of it? And the Constitution has lasted for how long now?
I know a small, heavily armed country in the Alps that calls BS on this.
Key word there: “Small”.
Ha! I knew it.
There is no reason though, that if they can leave each other alone, though they are practically sitting on each other, that you could not do that too, since you have a whole continent to spread out.
There is really no reason for Washingtonians to decide how Nebrascans should live.
That is like Sweden ruling over Luxembourg.
And Portugal.
And Greece.
Plus Ireland.[/quote]
We are one country. In a united country, there has to be standards set for all Americans… otherwise, you have regionalism that leads to wars like we have already had.
This is not a loose confederation- this is the United States. Maybe it takes an American to understand that.
Without a dominating central government, democracy fails. The states are not, and should not be, more powerful than the Union. The Articles of Confederation provided for a pussy central government… and America got what, eight years out of it? And the Constitution has lasted for how long now?
I know a small, heavily armed country in the Alps that calls BS on this.
Key word there: “Small”.
Ha! I knew it.
There is no reason though, that if they can leave each other alone, though they are practically sitting on each other, that you could not do that too, since you have a whole continent to spread out.
There is really no reason for Washingtonians to decide how Nebrascans should live.
That is like Sweden ruling over Luxembourg.
And Portugal.
And Greece.
Plus Ireland.
We are one country. In a united country, there has to be standards set for all Americans… otherwise, you have regionalism that leads to wars like we have already had.
This is not a loose confederation- this is the United States. Maybe it takes an American to understand that.[/quote]
Maybe many different cultures can exist on a very small room, if they leave each other alone.
Maybe many different cultures can exist on a very small room, if they leave each other alone.
Maybe it takes an European to understand that.
We really tried everything else.
The Europeans were slaughtering each other on a grand scale in my fathers life time. On a smaller scale in my life time.
It has been 140 years since Americans have warred with each other.
From my viewpoint the European system doesn’t look so good, but you are stuck with what you have.[/quote]
Yesterday, I watched ‘Barbarians’ on the History Channel. Man, its surprising that we’re alive at all. Taken in the context of how violent we are, I can understand how the Civil War erupted.
The Founding Fathers tried to create a system for beings that are violent predators. Uhhh…yeah, good luck with that, gents.
Maybe many different cultures can exist on a very small room, if they leave each other alone.
Maybe it takes an European to understand that.
We really tried everything else.
The Europeans were slaughtering each other on a grand scale in my fathers life time. On a smaller scale in my life time.
It has been 140 years since Americans have warred with each other.
From my viewpoint the European system doesn’t look so good, but you are stuck with what you have.
Yesterday, I watched ‘Barbarians’ on the History Channel. Man, its surprising that we’re alive at all. Taken in the context of how violent we are, I can understand how the Civil War erupted.
The Founding Fathers tried to create a system for beings that are violent predators. Uhhh…yeah, good luck with that, gents.
[/quote]
It is absolutely amazing. So many blood feuds, violent migrations etc.
