 |
|
Caligastia
|
|
You are forgiven my son
|
|
|  |
 |
|
ZaphodBeeblebrx
|
 |
Henniker, New Hampshire, USA, North America, Planet Earth, Sol System, Orion Sub-Arm, Perseus Arm, Milky Way Galaxy, Local Cluster, Local Super-Cluster, Visible Universe
Mar 2002 time: 00:19
|
|
I'm kind of torn.
On the one hand, I agree completely with MrFun's Constitutional Argument, while on the other hand, as a New Englander, I'm Culturally Predisposed to the Idea, that once a Law, or even a Ratified, Constitutional Amendment, crosses a Certain Line, probably dictated by Common Human Decency, it pretty much becomes, "Get out, while the Gettin's still Good!"
Perhaps even more important, are the possible Secondary Effects, to a Successful Southern Secession.
For a good example of these, I'd recommend, maybe as Required Reading, the book How Few Remain, and its Subsequent Saga, The Great War Series, all by Harry Turtledove.
Last edited by ZaphodBeeblebrx on 01-06-2002 at 04:35
|
|
|  |
 |
|
ZaphodBeeblebrx
|
 |
Henniker, New Hampshire, USA, North America, Planet Earth, Sol System, Orion Sub-Arm, Perseus Arm, Milky Way Galaxy, Local Cluster, Local Super-Cluster, Visible Universe
Mar 2002 time: 00:19
|
|
quote: Originally posted by SpencerH
As I understand it, the tariff argument is more to do with the south wanting to sell cotton directly to the Brits rather than go through Yankee middlemen. The tariffs were to be imposed with Lincoln's election in order to stop the south from doing so. |
If true, unfortunately that would Invalidate MrFun's Constitutional Argument, as the COTUS, quite specifically, Outlaws Export Tariffs.
Are you sure that it wasn't a Protective, Import, Tariff, on European Manufactured Goods, that would then have Forced them, to respond in Kind?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Rex Little
|
|
I'm not going to read through this whole thread (100 posts in one day--yeesh!), but my preference would have been to let the South secede peacefully. I think relations between the USA and CSA would then have been similar to USA-Canada in real life, or at worst USA-Mexico. Going forward, the US would have had probably less inclination, and certainly less ability, to throw its weight around in world affairs.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
SpencerH
|
 |
Co-Ruler of my patch of land south of Birmingham Alabama
Feb 2002 time: 23:19
|
|
quote: Originally posted by ZaphodBeeblebrx
If true, unfortunately that would Invalidate MrFun's Constitutional Argument, as the COTUS, quite specifically, Outlaws Export Tariffs.
Are you sure that it wasn't a Protective, Import, Tariff, on European Manufactured Goods, that would then have Forced them, to respond in Kind? |
To be honest, I'm not sure of the specifics. Its something I've picked up from a friend who's opinion I trust (that doesnt make him right of course).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote: Originally posted by SpencerH
I would say that slavery became the issue, just as nazi mistreatment of the Jews and other people became an issue. Wars are fought over money and power not morality.
|
The Southern states were quite clear about in the Secession Documents. They didn't talk about money and the power was about the voting power they needed to maintain slavery.
The money was and power issues were both dependent on slavery. If there was no slavery the other issues would not have existed. The vote power issue in particular. The economic issue would clearly have had be a different one not based on slavery to exist.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote: Originally posted by MrFun
It began as a war for the Union, and nothing more, but then changed in the midst of the war, to securing one of the foundational ideals of our government -- liberty. |
Only from the North's point of view. Not from the South's and they were the ones that seceded.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote: Originally posted by SpencerH
To be honest, I'm not sure of the specifics. Its something I've picked up from a friend who's opinion I trust (that doesnt make him right of course). |
It was about IMPORT not export tariffs. The South didn't like the way the taxes were being spent and they didn't like the protective nature of the tariffs. After all it was the Northern industries that were being protected.
However there was a compromise on the issue long before 1860. There was some fear that the protective tariffs would be reinstated. Such tariffs were started up in 1961 to pay for the war effort. Those taxes would not have been needed nor would likely have passed without the secession. After all the Southern states would have voted against them. Without the Southern Congressmen and Senators compromise was nor longer an issue.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
ZaphodBeeblebrx
|
 |
Henniker, New Hampshire, USA, North America, Planet Earth, Sol System, Orion Sub-Arm, Perseus Arm, Milky Way Galaxy, Local Cluster, Local Super-Cluster, Visible Universe
Mar 2002 time: 00:19
|
|
For an indication as to just how an Independant Confederacy, would react to the Changing Times, towards the end of the 19th Century, just check out one of the Books that I referenced in a Post, on the Last Page, How Few Remain, as well as a not Quite Unrelated book, called The Guns of the South, also, by the Same Author.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001 time: 00:19
|
|
quote: Originally posted by SpencerH
The point is that what are cited as reasons for war are not the real reasons. For example:
The cited reason for the gulf war was.......
The real reason was.......
The cited reason for the attacking Serbia was.......
The real reason was.......
Fill in whatever you like for any war, they're not likely to be the same. |
I disagree. You're talking wars that are fought in front of modern-day media with modern-day sentiments. I can think of plenty of wars where the cited reason was the real reason (WWI, WWII, Vietnam, The War of Austrian Secession...Thirty Years War...Peleponesian War... )
Besides, if this was the case, it makes the South look worse. I can understand and perhaps respect if they *really* believed in the institution and were willing to fight for it, even though I abhor the institution. If, however, they cynically used it as a cover for economic motives, that engenders no respect I find it callously evil.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote: Originally posted by SpencerH
The point is that what are cited as reasons for war are not the real reasons. For example:
The cited reason for the gulf war was.......
The real reason was.......
The cited reason for the attacking Serbia was.......
The real reason was.......
Fill in whatever you like for any war, they're not likely to be the same. |
So your psychic. You even read dead minds. The real reason for the Gulf War was that Iraq wanted the Kuwaiti oil fields.
The real reason the Serb attacked the non-Serbs is that they want the land for themselves.
The real reason the SOUTH seceded and then started a war is that they feared they would lose slavery. They said so. Not just in official documents either. They ran for office on it. They newspapers said it was about slavery. Private letters discuss slavery. The only thing that could show otherwise is for the Psychic Network to be real.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
History Guy
|
 |
Reads too many books...
Oct 2001 time: 23:19
|
|
A good number of Confederates actually fought for no other reason than that they felt they had to go with their state when it seceded, and that they could not fight against their people, Virginians against Virginians, that sort of thing. And Virginia, many people conviently forget, seems to have seceded mainly due to the fact that U.S. troops were crossing the border to go down and destroy already seceded areas. They saw this as invasion, and no one was going to tell them anything otherwise. The whole thing was one bloody mess. Nuff said.
The reason, of course, that Fort Sumter was fired upon, was because the people of South Carolina, who had claimed independence, believed that this was a sign of Northern aggression, and Major Anderson's hops around from fort to fort in Charleston harbor wasn't a help to the Union at all. In short, the Union brought about the firing by their own unflexibility. Of course, Lincoln had opted not to accept secession as legal, and so nothing was done at all about it. Nuff said.
I still can't shake the feeling, however, that slavery was already on it's last legs. I do doubt that, even had the South seceded peacefully, it would have survived much longer at all. That seems also to be the informed opinions of several major Civil War historians. Nuff said.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19. Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|