NationStates Jolt Archive

Was it the correct choice to declare war on the Confederacy, assuming that they would not respond to any amount of diplomacy (poll coming)? What course of action would you have taken?

The only problem I have with the Confederacy was slavery, which the US didn't declare war for anyway.

This again?

Lincoln violated the constitution wholesale by going to war with the south. He had no legal means to force states to remain in the union.

I'm happy about the result not the cause.

The only problem I have with the Confederacy was slavery, which the US didn't declare war for anyway.
Union bastard's just wanted to ruin the south economy!
No it wasn't right.

This again?

Lincoln violated the constitution wholesale by going to war with the south. He had no legal means to force states to remain in the union.
Besides being in legal rebellion and treason?


Gee, I wonder. At the very least it shows good faith that the Southerners fired first.

Besides being in legal rebellion and treason?


Gee, I wonder. At the very least it shows good faith that the Southerners fired first.

So, according to your rationale, the U.S., India, Canada, and Australia should all still be part of the British empire? Brazil should be part of Portugal, Mexico and south america (ex Brazil) should be Spanish?

Saying "we don't want to be part of your country anymore" doesn't make someone a traitor- unless they lose. Especially when "powers not expressly given to the federal government belong to the people or the states." The whole concept of "indivisible" didn't come into being until Lincoln wanted to force the south to remain.

So, according to your rationale, the U.S., India, Canada, and Australia should all still be part of the British empire? Brazil should be part of Portugal, Mexico and south america (ex Brazil) should be Spanish?

Saying "we don't want to be part of your country anymore" doesn't make someone a traitor- unless they lose. Especially when "powers not expressly given to the federal government belong to the people or the states." The whole concept of "indivisible" didn't come into being until Lincoln wanted to force the south to remain.
It's only treason if you don't win. Besides, the idea that lincoln started the entire 'indivisible' concept is hogwash. The nullification crisis, anyone?

It's only treason if you don't win.
Um, he said that already, almost in those exact words.

This is a case where the end justifies the meen. Licoln went in for a bad cause but slavery was abolished in the process so it turned out well.

This is a case where the end justifies the meen. Licoln went in for a bad cause but slavery was abolished in the process so it turned out well.
coughJimCrowSouthcoughcough

Um, he said that already, almost in those exact words.
I know. What he's saying is false, because it kindly forgets that history is written by the person who wins. To americans, the founding fathers were patriots and the southerners were traitors. To a hypothetical dixielander, the southerners would be heroes. Perspective is key, isn't it?

So, according to your rationale, the U.S., India, Canada, and Australia should all still be part of the British empire? Brazil should be part of Portugal, Mexico and south america (ex Brazil) should be Spanish?

Saying "we don't want to be part of your country anymore" doesn't make someone a traitor- unless they lose. Especially when "powers not expressly given to the federal government belong to the people or the states." The whole concept of "indivisible" didn't come into being until Lincoln wanted to force the south to remain.
If the government granted the wish for separation to everyone that wanted it, then the world would become a fragmented anarchy. In order to secede, a new country has to defeat the parent country. This means that only the nations that can get the most people behind their cause can secede, and are therefore the only ones that deserve it.

Considering the 'Feds fired the first shot...

If the government granted the wish for separation to everyone that wanted it, then the world would become a fragmented anarchy. In order to secede, a new country has to defeat the parent country. This means that only the nations that can get the most people behind their cause can secede, and are therefore the only ones that deserve it.

Man has a point. Hell, Cornwall wants to seccede from the UK. They don't have the armed forces or popular support to try it though. If they did, they're welcome to though. Just don't bitch if they lose.

This again?

Lincoln violated the constitution wholesale by going to war with the south. He had no legal means to force states to remain in the union.

and the south had no legal right to leave it. how can you declare yourself more important than the thing that created you?

the best story is southern planters wanting runaway slaves back under the Fugitive Slave Act. The Union general told them that Federal laws dont apply in other countries. heh. turned it against them.

lincoln did do lots of bad things (habeas corpus, maryland, conscription, greenbacks, emancipation). so did FDR (supreme court, the whole New Deal)

Considering the 'Feds fired the first shot...

explain. or did the south own ft sumter and south carolina stay in the union? :rolleyes:

and ditch the high and mighty smiley.

Oh, for goodness' sake, people! Read some history before you post drivel!

First, while the "indivisible" argument has SINCE been argued out to the conclusion that states do indeed have the right to secede, NO SUCH RULING had been made by the beginning of Lincoln's presidency. Lincoln's interpretation of the constitution was the one generally considered accurate at that time. Had the question ever gone to the Supreme Court, they might have ruled differently, but the legal option was never taken by the CSA.

Second, had Lincoln not declared war following the attack, bombardment and illegal seizure of Fort Sumter by southern forces, he would A) have lost all credibility with the military, B) exposed said military to attack throughout southern-claimed areas, and C) probably have been impeached by Congress, which was more than a little irate about the situation. He would also have basically greenlighted the CSA's radicals - they wanted to seize Maryland and Kansas, among others, as "culturally southern".

Third, even had the war not begun then, war between the two was probably inevitable. Economically, the North would have continued to dominate the South regardless of the border. Further, runaway slaves would undoubtedly have ceased to be returned by the North - why continue a practice repugnant to your own population?

At any rate, the South, from all my readings on the subject, wanted a war with the North. They wanted to prove their superiority; to throw off the North's increasing industrial power; and to justify their society.

They just didn't count on having the strongest president of the 19th Century in place to stop them.

Oh, for goodness' sake, people! Read some history before you post drivel!

First, while the "indivisible" argument has SINCE been argued out to the conclusion that states do indeed have the right to secede, NO SUCH RULING had been made by the beginning of Lincoln's presidency. Lincoln's interpretation of the constitution was the one generally considered accurate at that time. Had the question ever gone to the Supreme Court, they might have ruled differently, but the legal option was never taken by the CSA.

Second, had Lincoln not declared war following the attack, bombardment and illegal seizure of Fort Sumter by southern forces, he would A) have lost all credibility with the military, B) exposed said military to attack throughout southern-claimed areas, and C) probably have been impeached by Congress, which was more than a little irate about the situation. He would also have basically greenlighted the CSA's radicals - they wanted to seize Maryland and Kansas, among others, as "culturally southern".

Third, even had the war not begun then, war between the two was probably inevitable. Economically, the North would have continued to dominate the South regardless of the border. Further, runaway slaves would undoubtedly have ceased to be returned by the North - why continue a practice repugnant to your own population?

At any rate, the South, from all my readings on the subject, wanted a war with the North. They wanted to prove their superiority; to throw off the North's increasing industrial power; and to justify their society.

They just didn't count on having the strongest president of the 19th Century in place to stop them.
God, don't you read any revisionist books? :p

God, don't you read any revisionist books? :p

Unfortunately, as a professional historian, I have to.:headbang:

Then I gt to write nasty rebuttles of their so-called "theories". :p

Unfortunately, as a professional historian, I have to.:headbang:

Then I gt to write nasty rebuttles of their so-called "theories". :p
Ever talk with one of those authors face to face?

Ever talk with one of those authors face to face?

Upon occasion. Generally, face-to-face, we tend to be more mannered and more polite then we are in print.

Either that or I get to publicly eviscerate a worm who never spent enough time in the debating society...:)

Upon occasion. Generally, face-to-face, we tend to be more mannered and more polite then we are in print.

Either that or I get to publicly eviscerate a worm who never spent enough time in the debating society...:)
Now, that's something I'd like to see. Pay per view could do so many more amusing things than show wrestling matches.

Assuming the South wouldn't have joined the Union when it was formed, would both North and South have been strong enough to defend their independence from Britain?

Yes. It abolished the despicable practice of slavery.

Sevenglasses']Assuming the South wouldn't have joined the Union when it was formed, would both North and South have been strong enough to defend their independence from Britain?

Why would Britian go after either of them when it had a nice an better prize in India

The province trying to break away does not have "defeat" the country from which it is trying to secede, it simply has to destroy the contries wish to keep it.

In reality I don't believe that you can keep a province that has a general and determined wish by the majority of the population to secede.

Look to the examples of Ghandi in India. India certainly did not defeat Britain militarily. It made it econamicaly and morally infeasible for Britain to retain possesion of the colony.

For further proof take South Africa. No it was not a province breaking away from a parent country but it was a population overthrowing a government. Not through military victory but through economic victory.

Sevenglasses']Assuming the South wouldn't have joined the Union when it was formed, would both North and South have been strong enough to defend their independence from Britain?

Why would we invade? We were more than happy to let you fight when we had the Empire...although that nearly changed in 1896 of course...

The South did not want to go through with the American Revolutionary War. The time was merely comming for the historically Loyalist South to break away, not to mention something had to be done about state rights. A problem that had been plagueing the country ever since it started.

One could also cite cultural differences seeing as to how the North was more or less industrialized and the South agricultural. Nevertheless, slavery was an issue considering territories that were to beomce states sooner or later. There are a good number of reasons why the war occured but it is certainly better for the South - and the country as a whole - to be united economically.

Southern economic problems under the course of the war, namely printing too much of their currency, made it worthless and it would have been a depression had the Confederates managed to win. Anyhow, the economic circumstances for the South led to this event (http://www.townshipsheritage.com/Eng/Hist/Law/st.albans.html) occuring. Rather humorous in my opinion.

Secession is both an assault on the loyal citizens in the treasonous region and an assault on the nation as a whole, vis-a-vis the annexation of land, resources, &c.

Was it the correct choice to declare war on the Confederacy, assuming that they would not respond to any amount of diplomacy (poll coming)? What course of action would you have taken?

Actually, it was the United States that wouldn't respond to any amount of diplomacy.

While I don't agree with the South's reasons for leaving I believe that they had a right to leave if they so wanted to. If the US were a unitary state I think secession would have had to happen differently, but as the US is a federal system I don't see any reason to force them back in.

Union bastard's just wanted to ruin the south economy!
No it wasn't right.

Excuse Me?!?!

Their economy would have been ruined if they had manged to win. They wouldn't have the manfacturing industry. Had they won than both economies would have been ruined.

They just didn't count on having the strongest president of the 19th Century in place to stop them.

Pfft! Three words for you: James Knox Polk.