Is It Time to Dissolve the United States?

[Axl Van Sixx]

The South certainly does deserve the blame for starting the war considering that Lincoln had no intentions of freeing the slaves. But a lot of the stuff that Lincoln did to win the war was well.....morally wrong.

War, once started, develops its own logic. Temporary dictatorial measures are often invoked when a state is under threat; the key is that once the emergency is over civil liberties need to be restored.

That's the difference between the Civil War situation (where the war was a specific emergency with a finite end, and Johnson restored habeas corpus after it was over) and today, when habeas corpus increasingly exists in theory only throughout the American gulags and the "emergency" is an endless war on an abstract concept ("terrorism").

 

[WildcatNC]

The South certainly does deserve the blame for starting the war considering that Lincoln had no intentions of freeing the slaves. But a lot of the stuff that Lincoln did to win the war was well.....morally wrong.

I'm not even sure about that. There is no doubt that the defense of slavery is a morally wrong fight. That was not the only issue at play though.


From my personal reading the South seemed to have a legal right to secede from the union. The south had no plans to invade and occupy the north, they just wanted to be left alone for the most part to govern themselves. It was the Union that was the aggressor and encroached upon the southern states legal rights to not be part of the union if they so chose.

Having said that, I am glad slavery was ended however it needed to be and i'm not one who cares a damn about "Laws", nor looks at them as sacred as some do. I consider the Union states decision not to honor the south's property and fugitive laws as a proper ethical decision. I would have done the same. It was however, illegal and a violation of the south's constitutional rights as it was written at the time. When dealing with government, law is considered above ethics.

It was also an act of aggression to attempt forceful re-integration of the southern states. Several states had the right to succession specifically stated in their conditions for accepting the Constitution in the first place. It was a voluntary coalition of states and each one could choose to leave if the people of the state wanted to.

I think its shameful that America had slaves at all, for any amount of time. Especially considering basic human rights and freedoms as our driving ideological force. When looking at history though, you have to do so with a neutral lens I think.

Lincoln may have acted ethically in a morale sense in hindsight. His actions were however, illegal and unconstitutional. When the south exercised their legal right to secede he initiated military action to deny them that right.

 

[SV Fan]

From my personal reading the South seemed to have a legal right to secede from the union. The south had no plans to invade and occupy the north, they just wanted to be left alone for the most part to govern themselves. It was the Union that was the aggressor and encroached upon the southern states legal rights to not be part of the union if they so chose.

From My Understanding the South was getting annoyed with the North feeling they were overtaxing them without getting any benefit from it.

 

[WildcatNC]

From My Understanding the South was getting annoyed with the North feeling they were overtaxing them without getting any benefit from it.

That is generally true. Part of the deal was that all the large cities and immigration ports were in the north. As the northern population grew and became more industrialized there was both a widening gap in representation in congress (due to population size) and between the cultures of the two. Even though they were technically nearly half of the union (by states) they were getting the shaft in congress and were quickly losing influence and hence the ability to protect their interests. The 3/5ths compromise was part of this that the south managed to get to even the scale a little early on but it did little good. The south became increasingly frustrated as time went on and were essentially left with two choices. Do what the Union states wanted them to do or secede. At this time people generally wouldn't see themselves as "American" as much as they would a "Virginian" or a "Carolinian". There wasn't nearly a "national identity" like we know today. It was there but not nearly as pronounced. Many states chose to secede, which was a legal right.

At the time it was not generally thought that the federal government had any right to act upon the states in any way that was not expressly given by the constitution. By the nature of the Congress though, those of the northern culture began to vastly outnumber those of the south in congress and began doing what they wanted, disregarding the south more times than not. There was no need for them to work with them, they had the votes to do what they wanted. What they wanted often screwed the southern states in favor of the union ones. Much like today when one party controls the white house and the house.

The Civil War was the final act in a long running drama. Many think it just broke out in the years just prior to the war.

 

[DACrowe]

I'm no big history buff but didn't Lincoln essentially dare the South to secede by not withdrawing troops from Ft Sumter? I recall some documentary I had watched where his strategy on leaving them there could be seen as a passive-aggressive gesture indicating that perhaps he really did want the war but just didn't want to be the one who officially started it. Any of you buffs want to comment on the validity of this?

He didn't dare them to secede. SC seceded followed by the states that would become the Confederacy after Lincoln won the 1860 election. Buchanan did nothing (earning him a place in the worst POTUS list) for the three months of open secession while the South amassed its power and formed its Confederacy. The Union did not give up Ft. Sumter because they did not recognize the secession. Lincoln sent food and water to the forted island as supplies, knowing the SC troops in Charleston bay would likely fire on the supplies. But at that point it was inevitable and Lincoln just positioned it so that SC would take the first shot.

But they seceded well before that point from the previous year.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I don't think the North gets as much flack as the South gets. The South gets made fun of constantly and are considered to be behind the North still 200 years later.

I don't think I have ever heard a nothern state referred to as not being a real American.

You must have never been to the south.

 

[DACrowe]

From My Understanding the South was getting annoyed with the North feeling they were overtaxing them without getting any benefit from it.

They were most concerned that the increasing number of free states (aimed to contain and isolate the slave holding Southern states) meant the marginalization of their voice in Congress.

You can read their Declarations of Secession here. It's all rotated around feeling their slave holding rights are being weakened and endangered by the growing number of free states. They viewed Lincoln as an abolitionist here to finish the job. Or that was their excuse to use that election, in any case.

That is generally true. Part of the deal was that all the large cities and immigration ports were in the north. As the northern population grew and became more industrialized there was both a widening gap in representation in congress (due to population size) and between the cultures of the two. Even though they were technically nearly half of the union (by states) they were getting the shaft in congress and were quickly losing influence and hence the ability to protect their interests. The 3/5ths compromise was part of this that the south managed to get to even the scale a little early on but it did little good. The south became increasingly frustrated as time went on and were essentially left with two choices. Do what the Union states wanted them to do or secede. At this time people generally wouldn't see themselves as "American" as much as they would a "Virginian" or a "Carolinian". There wasn't nearly a "national identity" like we know today. It was there but not nearly as pronounced. Many states chose to secede, which was a legal right.

At the time it was not generally thought that the federal government had any right to act upon the states in any way that was not expressly given by the constitution. By the nature of the Congress though, those of the northern culture began to vastly outnumber those of the south in congress and began doing what they wanted, disregarding the south more times than not. There was no need for them to work with them, they had the votes to do what they wanted. What they wanted often screwed the southern states in favor of the union ones. Much like today when one party controls the white house and the house.

The Civil War was the final act in a long running drama. Many think it just broke out in the years just prior to the war.

As I said above, it is largely about being contained by a growing number of free states like California. That's what "Bleeding Kansas" was all about and why Kansas and Nebraska remained territories. It really was building since the Continental Congress fights where SC forced Jefferson to remove his repudiation of slavery from the Declaration. It was put off and building since that point.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I lived in Texas for close to 5 years. Those are some interesting people. They are TEXANS first, 'Merican's second. At least the white ones I met.

It's also the only state I've ever seen with a sign on the door to the bank asking you to please not bring your gun(s) inside.

Sounds like Tennessee where people claim to be Christians first, Americans second.

God I hate this place.

 

[kedrell]

He didn't dare them to secede. SC seceded followed by the states that would become the Confederacy after Lincoln won the 1860 election. Buchanan did nothing (earning him a place in the worst POTUS list) for the three months of open secession while the South amassed its power and formed its Confederacy. The Union did not give up Ft. Sumter because they did not recognize the secession. Lincoln sent food and water to the forted island as supplies, knowing the SC troops in Charleston bay would likely fire on the supplies. But at that point it was inevitable and Lincoln just positioned it so that SC would take the first shot.

But they seceded well before that point from the previous year.

Ok, thanks. The main part I recalled was that he wanted the South to be the one's to take the first shot. I wonder what would have happened had the south been more savvy to know that they shouldn't be the first to begin aggressive actions and not fired on the fort but simply kept supplies from reaching it and starving them into (peaceful)surrender. Would Lincoln then have decided that the North was going to have to fire the first shot?

 

[WildcatNC]

They were most concerned that the increasing number of free states (aimed to contain and isolate the slave holding Southern states) meant the marginalization of their voice in Congress.

You can read their Declarations of Secession here. It's all rotated around feeling their slave holding rights are being weakened and endangered by the growing number of free states. They viewed Lincoln as an abolitionist here to finish the job. Or that was their excuse to use that election, in any case.



As I said above, it is largely about being contained by a growing number of free states like California. That's what "Bleeding Kansas" was all about and why Kansas and Nebraska remained territories. It really was building since the Continental Congress fights where SC forced Jefferson to remove his repudiation of slavery from the Declaration. It was put off and building since that point.

I agree, thats one of the things I was getting at in a round about way. I often try to fit to much info into a short space and it comes out cluttered. It wasn't "only" about the free/slave issue though. There were many other economic and political reasons. I'm not marginalizing that aspect, but most modern people practice major revisionism and think that was the only issue. Many have no idea it was a complex situation.

Ok, thanks. The main part I recalled was that he wanted the South to be the one's to take the first shot. I wonder what would have happened had the south been more savvy to know that they shouldn't be the first to begin aggressive actions and not fired on the fort but simply kept supplies from reaching it and starving them into (peaceful)surrender. Would Lincoln then have decided that the North was going to have to fire the first shot?

Lincoln was a very able Statesman. He did what he thought was right (keeping the union together), but it was illegal and unconstitutional as well as an act of aggression to move troops there in the first place. There is a reason the south called it the "war of northern aggression". Many times in the early war the south defeated the Union armies and returned home. They were defending their homes, not trying to invade or occupy the North. There were many people on the Southern side that weren't fighting for Slavery at all, they were defending their homes and fighting the notion that the federal government could tell the states what to do. Slavery was one of many issues at play. Many personal letter show this well. We have warped this to be a simple good/bad issue in the public eye, particularly post civil rights era.

 

[SuperFerret]

Sounds like Tennessee where people claim to be Christians first, Americans second.

God I hate this place.

Just part of how people label themselves, and shows their priorities. These people feel that they are more defined by their religion than by their nationality, and that's perfectly fine.

I personally feel the same way. If I had to rank every label I identify with, I'd consider my belief system to be between fifth to tenth most important, and "American" far, far, far, FAR down the list, perhaps in the 70's (I'm not sure how many labels I really think I'd have).

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Just part of how people label themselves, and shows their priorities. These people feel that they are more defined by their religion than by their nationality, and that's perfectly fine.

I personally feel the same way. If I had to rank every label I identify with, I'd consider my belief system to be between fifth to tenth most important, and "American" far, far, far, FAR down the list, perhaps in the 70's (I'm not sure how many labels I really think I'd have).

It is not okay when along with that label comes a belief (and action upon that belief) that your Christian values supersede anyone else's religious freedoms, and that America needs to base it's laws upon your Christian beliefs.

 

[SuperFerret]

That's an entirely different thing though. It's like comparing apples and limestone.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I still don't trust anyone who claims to be a Christian before being an American.

 

[WildcatNC]

I still don't trust anyone who claims to be a Christian before being an American.

I like people who claim to be a human and doesn't give much of a crap about the other labels personally. Although I do like the "thinker" label.

 

[SuperFerret]

I'm SuperFerret. That's enough.

"Human" is near the top though, but then I'm not the type of person to discriminate along species lines. I think "Alive" is my number one, honestly.

 

[Schlosser85]

I detest the ignorant rednecks who think they're Christians but boo Ron Paul oblivious to the fact that he was quoting Scripture.

Like I'm gonna care about being judged by people who don't even have the first clue about their own religion.

 

[Papa G]

I am just completely sick of their not being a single researched interpretation of the Constitution and Americans putting whatever values the want into it, and having actors literally represent them to maintain the status quo.

Have you ever been to college? Just read a list of law school and political science courses-academics and judges amongst many others are constantly trying to evaluate interpretations of the constitution. It's widely admitted that our founding fathers did not foresee what America could become, and different cultural mores governed the writing of the constitution. It's not surprising that you don't know or understand any of this when you can't even correctly use the word "there".

 

[WildcatNC]

Have you ever been to college? Just read a list of law school and political science courses-academics and judges amongst many others are constantly trying to evaluate interpretations of the constitution. It's widely admitted that our founding fathers did not foresee what America could become, and different cultural mores governed the writing of the constitution. It's not surprising that you don't know or understand any of this when you can't even correctly use the word "there".

Its true that they had no way of knowing how the culture and technology would change the game.

They created it to be a living, adaptable document. They also assumed some common sense would be used. Something that isn't so common anymore apparently.