Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Civil War--The Long Recall (update)

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Civil War--The Long Recall (update)
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Ya-ta Boy

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 7:06 am Post subject:

Quote:

and slavery would have eventually been ended peacefully (as it had been everywhere else) without the loss of 600 thousand plus Americans, and untold amounts of damage to property.

At the time of the Civil War there were 4,000,000 slaves. How many years and decades of the further tyranny of slavery for them would you consider proper and acceptable? You talk about the tyranny of government but you don't seem to have any consideration for the tyranny of slavery. Why is the suffering of 4 million human beings in actual chains less important than the metaphorical tyranny of a government passing a tax you don't like? I do not understand your concept of tyranny.

Rand Paul said he was not a racist although he would condone racial discrimination even if he wouldn't personally approve. I read that as meaning the rights of racial minorities are not rights but merely 'privileges' the majority is free to ignore. How can defending that be ethical?

Is there really a difference between owning a slave and fighting for the 'right' of another to own slaves even if you don't? It looks the same to me.

Space Bar

Joined: 20 Oct 2010

Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 8:11 am Post subject:

Fox wrote:

Because secession was about slavery, in addition to being unconstitutional (and thus illegal), it was also immoral.

Can you point us to the part of the Constitution that makes slavery illegal? Because it was Constitutional to count a black man as 3/5 of a white man.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 3:24 pm Post subject:

geldedgoat wrote:

Fox wrote:

geldedgoat wrote:

But I still don't see how that helps you. Lincoln ...

... isn't what I'm here defending.

Then what exactly is your contention with me? I've very clearly stated that my beef lies with the governments of the Confederacy and the Union, as they are the ones responsible, respectively, for the secession and the invasion.

My "beef" is that you continually take statements about Lincoln and attribute them to the people of the Union collectively in an attempt to drag them down to the degenerate level of the Confederacy.

geldedgoat wrote:

Individual Southerners didn't pen individual formal declarations of secession; their governments did.

That's true! Some Southerners resisted the Confederacy, either by refusing to take up arms or by fighting along side Union soldiers against the evil. I'm certainly not taking issue with such individuals. Those that chose to fight, however, chose to fight in favor of an illegal, immoral political entity, and thus share in its shame.

geldedgoat wrote:

Likewise, large groups of Northerners didn't rank up and march south to beat their brothers into submission of their own volition; they did so on the order of their government.

Union soldiers were doing something between defending the Constitution at the heart of their nation and fighting to end slavery (with individual soldiers having differing motivations). At worst, they were fighting on the side of law (i.e. to preserve the Union), and at best they were fighting on the side of right (i.e. against slavery). This attempt to drag them down to the level of the Confederacy is exactly my issue. You're very obviously not merely making statements about Lincoln, but rather projecting your feelings about Lincoln onto an entire body of people in an illegitimate fashion.

geldedgoat wrote:

If we imagine a vastly different scenario, one in which secession was not a national topic of discussion and the election of Lincoln was not known to be a likely catalyst to the secession, then yes, the soldiers of the North might have refused their conscription. However, I still don't see how that's the slightest bit relevant since, in the actual history of the war and the events leading up to it, we have documented admissions from the leadership of the Union government that slavery was nothing more than incidental to the decision to wage war against the South.

It's relevant because it should cause you to limit your criticism to a small group of men rather than projecting it onto the Union collectively. Because your goal seems to be to blacken the face of the Union in order to drag it down to the level of the Confederacy (a stark task given the singular evil of the latter organization), I'm not sure you'll be willing to limit your criticism in such a fashion.

geldedgoat wrote:

No, killing hundreds of thousands of soldiers to eliminate slavery and subjugate the citizens of slaveholding states when many other nonviolent means of accomplishing the same goals were available was not just and correct.

Well, we disagree. I lean strongly towards pacifism, geldedgoat. Strongly. There are things in this world worth fighting against, though; things worth wiping from the face of the Earth. The Confederacy surely was among those things, seeking not just to preserve slavery but to actively expand it. If you think that we must never take action in the face of obvious and blatant evil, so be it. I think otherwise.

And no, there were no legitimate, reasonable alternative approaches. Simply waiting for slavery to slowly die out in the face of political forces would have bee acceptable, but the South would not allow slavery to slowly die out in America, and their fear of it doing so is exactly why they seceded.

Oh, but there was the "Crittenden Compromise" you might say. I don't know if you read it, but that compromise shows exactly what the Southern states were really about: states' rights for the South, federal control on the North. It defends Southern slave rights while simultaneously illegalizes Northern rights to reject slavery in its entirety by forcing them to comply with the fugitive slave act. It strips the Federal Government of its rights regarding regulation of interstate commerce, but only regarding slavery (so the Southern states can continue to use the Federal Government to meddle with Northern concerns, but not the reverse). Congress was required to use Northern tax dollars to provide compensation to Southern slave holders whose slaves escaped and could not be recovered, forcing the North to not only help enforce slavery, but fund it as well. And worst of all, the amendment in question explicitly labeled itself unalterable and put slavery on a pedestal beyond any regulation from the Federal Government.

In short, this compromise essentially turns the Federal Government into the Confederacy in character, codifying slavery as a fundamental and eternally irremovable part of the nation. It's not a compromise, it's, "Okay, you guys win, enjoy your slavery forever, and call us if you need help enforcing your brutal mandates." I can't believe this is something you'd support.

Last edited by Fox on Tue Apr 19, 2011 4:24 pm; edited 1 time in total

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 3:57 pm Post subject:

Space Bar wrote:

Fox wrote:

Because secession was about slavery, in addition to being unconstitutional (and thus illegal), it was also immoral.

Can you point us to the part of the Constitution that makes slavery illegal? Because it was Constitutional to count a black man as 3/5 of a white man.

I'm sorry about the lack of clarity; the "it" in question was secession, not slavery. Secession was unconstitutional and, because it was motivated by slavery, also immoral.

Steelrails

Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 4:02 pm Post subject:

What unified the Confederacy was the belief in slavery. All states believe in state's rights when it suits their interests. The interest the Confederate States had was slavery. Likewise while the border states did not secede even though they allowed slavery, their interest in avoiding the bloodshed and destruction was a large part of it, though this didn't stop their citizens from fighting each other or their states turning into battlegrounds.

geldedgoat

Joined: 05 Mar 2009

Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 11:13 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

My "beef" is that you continually take statements about Lincoln and attribute them to the people of the Union collectively in an attempt to drag them down to the degenerate level of the Confederacy.

If you can show me one example of me doing that in this thread, I will refrain from calling this a straw man.

While I wait for you to do that, allow me to show where you do what you just falsely accused me of doing:

Quote:

Those that chose to fight, however, chose to fight in favor of an illegal, immoral political entity, and thus share in its shame.

Nope, sorry, but this is so far off base it's painful. I won't argue that many, many Southerners did take up arms with the specific intent of defending an institution we now universally recognize as evil and should thus 'share in the shame', but for you to either deny or ignore that others fought simply because their family, friends, neighbors, and compatriots were being murdered and/or impoverished by an invading force is incredibly disingenuous.

This is actually the reason I refuse to slander the actions of individual Union soldiers and citizens, as I see no basis to blaim all for the immorality of those few in power responsible for plunging the nation into war.

Then again, maybe you just misspoke.

Quote:

You're very obviously not merely making statements about Lincoln, but rather projecting your feelings about Lincoln onto an entire body of people in an illegitimate fashion.

No, I very obviously am 'merely making statements about Lincoln [and likeminded Republican officials],' as I've stated every time you've forced me to clarify my position.

The Union soldiers who fought to end slavery are of no concern to me. The Union soldiers who were conscripted against their will are also of no concern to me. What is of concern to me is the government that took those people to war with the sole intent of subjugating through the use of the most extreme violence other governments and their populations.

And though I haven't said as much before in this thread, this would also extend to Union soldiers who fought willingly and enthusiastically for no reason other than preserving the Union. These people would also, to use your phrase again, 'share in the shame' of having such despicable motives.

Quote:

It's relevant because it should cause you to limit your criticism to a small group of men rather than projecting it onto the Union collectively.

Well hot damn, I guess it's a good thing that that's exactly what I've been doing. When I mention the Union, I speak specifcally of the Union government. Reading any of the posts I've made in this thread should show you that.

Quote:

If you think that we must never take action in the face of obvious and blatant evil, so be it.

Straw man. I've said here and before that I think action should have been taken. Perhaps you meant to address visitorq and his apparent belief that slavery would have sorted itself out eventually?

Quote:

It's not a compromise, it's, "Okay, you guys win, enjoy your slavery forever, and call us if you need help enforcing your brutal mandates." I can't believe this is something you'd support.

This is yet another straw man, though this I can accept as an honest mistake.

I never said I supported the Crittenden Compromise. I only mentioned it as an example of Lincoln's refusal (or inability) to compromise with the South, as he rejected the entire proposal out of hand and never offered any real alternative himself.

We've had this discussion before, and, in case you don't remember, the alternative I see as the most agreeable is an economic one, offering compensation to slaveholders and slaveholding states to afford them the oppurtunity to amend their cultures and economies without becoming destitute (and thus beholden to the federal government) in the process. If I recall correctly, you seemed to be amenable to the idea.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 11:56 pm Post subject:

geldedgoat wrote:

Fox wrote:

My "beef" is that you continually take statements about Lincoln and attribute them to the people of the Union collectively in an attempt to drag them down to the degenerate level of the Confederacy.

If you can show me one example of me doing that in this thread, I will refrain from calling this a straw man.

Here:

geldedgoat wrote:

Given that Lincoln, the man responsible for committing Unions troops to war, admitted that the preservation of the Union, not slavery, was his sole concern, it's a fair assumption that no change to A would have any effect on B => C.

So yes, it most certainly is unreasonable to say that the Union went to war because of Southern slavery.

You take Lincoln's motive for war, and directly project it onto the soldiers fighting under him, either forgetting or ignoring that they had their own motivations to comply with a call to arms in a most unusual situation. The Union going to war requires 2 necessary conditions:

1) The Commander in Chief calling for it.
2) The men of the Union complying with that call.

You have consistently ignored or forgotten the second component in this thread, and instead simply painted what you (probably correctly) feel Lincoln's motivations to be onto the Union at large, actively ignoring the motivations of the people actually doing the fighting and dying. Nations are more than merely their governments, and talking about merely their governments in this situation is utterly pointless. The Confederacy would have been crushed immediately had not numerous men been willing to fight under its immoral banner, and the Union would never have gone to war had men not been willing to take arms against the Confederacy.

I'll let this stand as a response to your repeated references back to this point throughout this post.

geldedgoat wrote:

While I wait for you to do that, allow me to show where you do what you just falsely accused me of doing:

Quote:

Those that chose to fight, however, chose to fight in favor of an illegal, immoral political entity, and thus share in its shame.

Standing on the side of evil, "because your family and friends are doing it," is not an ethical excuse. You know that. I know that. Let's dispense with it. Every single soldier who fought on the side of the Confederacy was fighting under the banner of preserving slavery; literally fighting to the death for the sake of slavery. That's not to say Union soldiers are necessarily good to-the-man; I've all ready conceded that an unknown and unknowable portion of them had less than perfectly pure motives. None the less, the distinction is clear and obvious.

geldedgoat wrote:

The Union soldiers who fought to end slavery are of no concern to me.

Well, without taking them into consideration it's impossible to come to a legitimate and meaningful ethical judgment regarding the Civil War.

geldedgoat wrote:

What is of concern to me is the government that took those people to war with the sole intent of subjugating through the use of the most extreme violence other governments and their populations.

A nation like the Confederacy could not be allowed to thrive. Even if you want to insist that the Union's motivations were not pure, they still did the world a huge favor by putting down a rebellion which was actively attempting to form a nation dedicated to the eternal preservation and expansion of the enslavement of its fellow man. Back in reality, where the average soldier's motivation was probably a lot more pure than you'd like to give them credit for, much of the Union army not only did the right thing, but for the right reason too, regardless of what you assert to be the pragmatic and legalistic mindset of the Federal Government.

geldedgoat wrote:

Quote:

If you think that we must never take action in the face of obvious and blatant evil, so be it.

Straw man. I've said here and before that I think action should have been taken.

No, you stated that a particular offer should be made:

geldedgoat wrote:

We've had this discussion before, and, in case you don't remember, the alternative I see as the most agreeable is an economic one, offering compensation to slaveholders and slaveholding states to afford them the oppurtunity to amend their cultures and economies without becoming destitute (and thus beholden to the federal government) in the process. If I recall correctly, you seemed to be amenable to the idea.

That's not action in the face of evil, that's trying to buy people into goodness. Mind you, I don't think that makes it a bad idea; if it could have been worked out, it would have obviously been superior to what happened. None the less, pretend if you will that the South simply rejected it and seceded anyway (which is a fairly plausible scenario, I think, given the almost religious dedication to slavery among many of the slave-holding elite in the South). What's your follow up? In the (barely) hypothetical scenario where you have to choose between turning the Federal Government into the Confederacy, taking military action against the Confederacy, or simply tolerating an evil empire to the South, what is your choice?

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 1:04 am Post subject:

Ya-ta Boy wrote:

Is secession legal? I bow to the superior wisdom of Lincoln as expressed in his First Inaugural:

"A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted.
��I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.
��Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it�break it, so to speak�but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
��Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."
��But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.
��It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances."
��
I'm curious how the revisionists address the arguments of Lincoln:

a. All governments are by nature perpetual.
b. Can one party to a contract break the contract and free itself of the obligations?
c. The concept of union, and therefore one people, pre-dates the Constitution and was explicitly meant to be perpetual (Articles of Confederation, XIII)
d. The Constitution was meant to create a more perfect union, which carried forward the idea of perpetuity.

I would add some of the thoughts of Washington from his Farewell Address:

"The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize...discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts...
To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a Government for the whole is indispensable. No alliances, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions, which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a Constitution of Government better calculated than your former for an intimate Union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This Government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true Liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish Government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established Government."
**
To sum up, the People repeatedly established a perpetual union and provided ways to legally amend the government when it was not to their satisfaction. To dissolve the Union required an explicit act of all the people, not some regional minority. Secession was illegal.

What a crock. By this ridiculous logic, the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution against King George was illegal. All the above legalese is utterly groundless, and nowhere is it stated in the Constitution that the Union was "perpetual". To say it was "implied", because Lincoln the big corporate/big government railroad lawyer said so is laughable. Ya-ta boy is full-fledged, blatant apologist for tyranny.

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 1:19 am Post subject:

Ya-ta Boy wrote:

Quote:

and slavery would have eventually been ended peacefully (as it had been everywhere else) without the loss of 600 thousand plus Americans, and untold amounts of damage to property.

I completely condemn slavery. It should never have been allowed in the first place and should have been abolished as soon as possible. However, realistically it was not worth going to war and killing hundreds of thousands of people and devastating the whole society over (it's not like the freed slaves were immediately much better off in the aftermath of the destruction the war caused)...

As for how long it would have taken, one can only speculate. But likely it would have ended fairly soon. The claim that the South absolutely required slaves is dubious. Somehow the British and other European empires that built their fortunes on slavery managed to abolish it. The North managed to. The South would have too. It was an outdated, barbaric model.

Quote:

Rand Paul said he was not a racist although he would condone racial discrimination even if he wouldn't personally approve. I read that as meaning the rights of racial minorities are not rights but merely 'privileges' the majority is free to ignore. How can defending that be ethical?

It's called freedom of association. If racist people want to be racist on their own property, as long as they are not engaging in a crime (ie. physical violence, theft etc.) they should be allowed to do so. If a privately owned bar/restaurant etc. wants to refuse service to people of a given race, I personally find it deplorable and would boycott that place (and encourage everyone I know to do the same), but I would reluctantly support their right to do so... the government should not regulate who people choose to associate with. At the same time, I don't think the government should support private businesses, so it cuts both ways.

Quote:

Is there really a difference between owning a slave and fighting for the 'right' of another to own slaves even if you don't? It looks the same to me.

Nobody has the right to own slaves. I disagree that those in the south were fighting for the right of others to own slaves. That may have been the rhetoric tossed around, but I believe they were fighting for their independence. Enemy soldiers were marching on their homeland with the intent of subjugating them, so it's only natural they would fight them off.

geldedgoat

Joined: 05 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 11:31 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

geldedgoat wrote:

So yes, it most certainly is unreasonable to say that the Union went to war because of Southern slavery.

Again, the motives of the soliders are of absolutely no concern because they are not the ones able to issue a call to arms. If they were, then all those Northern and Southern abolitionists that predated the war would have (or should have) formed their own army. But they didn't. At least not until a warmonger concerned only with maintaining and expanding a strong central government took office. As he and like-minded congressmen were the only ones with the authority to send troops to war, the fault ends with them; their motives are the only ones that matter. That slavery served as a politcally convenient tool with which they were able to gain compliance from the Union's citizens is entirely irrelevant to my criticism of the government and its war.

If slavery had persisted without secession, there would have been no war. If secession had occurred in the absense of slavery, there would have been a war (again, imagining a scenario not significantly different from what actually occurred). Secession, then, is the only constant, not slavery.

Quote:

Nations are more than merely their governments, and talking about merely their governments in this situation is utterly pointless.

Since my criticism is limited to just the two governments, talking about anything other than those governments would be pointless.

Quote:

geldedgoat wrote:

[...] others fought simply because their family, friends, neighbors, and compatriots were being murdered and/or impoverished by an invading force [...]

Standing on the side of evil, "because your family and friends are doing it," is not an ethical excuse. You know that.

You're right; I do. Lucky for me I didn't say anything like that.

Quote:

Even if you want to insist that the Union's motivations were not pure, they still did the world a huge favor by putting down a rebellion which was actively attempting to form a nation dedicated to the eternal preservation and expansion of the enslavement of its fellow man.

I honestly can't believe you're resorting to this. If John Wayne Gacy had picked up Jeffrey Dahmer and killed him in 1972, would his actions be morally justifiable simply because the world would have been better off if Dahmer hadn't lived long enough to explore his culinary creativity? No, of course not, and just because Lincoln's murder of hundreds of thousands Americans for the preservation of the Union managed to herald the end of American slavery does not excuse his actions and motives.

But yes, you're right, slavery = bad and slavery coming to an end = good.

Quote:

geldedgoat wrote:

I've said here and before that I think action should have been taken.

No, you stated that a particular offer should be made:

In what reality is an economic attempt to end slavery and avert a war not considered 'taking action?' Are you only willing to accept automatic, complete submission and war as viable actions?

Quote:

That's not action in the face of evil, that's trying to buy people into goodness.

No, it would be the Union's attempt to nonviolently end an institution that they both profitted from and had a hand in legitimizing. The North bore some of the responsibility for slavery having flourished, so, because of that, for the anti-slavery North to demand the compliance of slaveholding states without offering assistance to avoid economic disaster in the South would be incredibly immoral. It would be even worse if that demand came from a group of individuals who favored strengthening the central government and were indifferent to crippling those areas strongest in favor of more powerful state governments. Worse still if a war were involved...

Quote:

None the less, pretend if you will that the South simply rejected it and seceded anyway (BS removed). What's your follow up?

If the South had rejected genuine Northern attempts at painlessly helping the South out of a slave-dependent economy? Meaning that war (possibly embargoes too) actually would have been the only solution to ending slavery? And Lincoln invaded for that reason alone? Of course I would have to hold a favorable opinion of the Union then. What were you hoping to accomplish with this?

Quote:

You take Lincoln's motive for war, and directly project it onto the soldiers fighting under him

Quote:

instead simply painted what you (probably correctly) feel Lincoln's motivations to be onto the Union at large

Quote:

the average soldier's motivation was probably a lot more pure than you'd like to give them credit for

Keep making statements like these, and I'm just going to ignore your posts entirely. Argue if you want that the motives of the Union's citizens are relevant to my criticism of the Union government, but insisting that I'm casting aspersions on individual soldiers when I have repeatedly and explicitly stated that I couldn't care less about them is beyond disingenuous. Stop.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2011 12:02 am Post subject:

geldedgoat wrote:

Again, the motives of the soliders are of absolutely no concern because they are not the ones able to issue a call to arms.

They're the ones that must be able and willing to respond to it, though. I don't think a discussion that ignores the common soldier is really a discussion of the Civil War at all. The only reason I entered into this conversation at all is because you -- either in error or intentionally -- started including the Union in your language.

geldedgoat wrote:

The key difference, of course, is that Gacy's actions would have been illegal, while in the case of the Civil War, it was the Confederacy that was in violation of the law. A better analogy would be a police man that ended up shooting Jeffrey Dahmer in the line of legitimate duty in 1972, and in that case, yes, he would have done the world a favor due to his entirely legal actions also preventing future evil. The fact that the Confederacy's evil was patently obvious from the start rather than being something that would only manifest later further reinforces this.

geldedgoat wrote:

In what reality is an economic attempt to end slavery and avert a war not considered 'taking action?'

It's not taking action because the South could have (and very possibly would have) simply said no and shut it down entirely. Like I said, that doesn't make it a bad idea; if the South agreed to it, it would have been both acceptable and preferable to what ended up happening otherwise.

geldedgoat wrote:

Are you only willing to accept automatic, complete submission and war as viable actions?

I think the behavior and beliefs of the Southern elite created a situation where only complete submission and war were viable possibilities. I'm asking you to accept that at least hypothetically in order to better understand your position in its fullness.

geldedgoat wrote:

I was hoping to understand your position better, and moreover, hoping to find some common ground. We both seem to ultimately agree the Confederacy needed to be prevented, and we both agree that if it could have been done without bloodshed, it would have been better. Given I don't think we'll agree about the remainder (specifically about the importance of the common soldier's character in analysis of the sides of the war and their cause, or the ethical status of someone who is acting from a legal motivation and ends up achieving an ethically laudable goal), I don't think I have much more to say. I don't think I wrongly represented your words at any point in this discussion, but if you feel I did, I apologize.

Steelrails

Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2011 3:00 am Post subject:

Quote:

owever, realistically it was not worth going to war and killing hundreds of thousands of people and devastating the whole society over (it's not like the freed slaves were immediately much better off in the aftermath of the destruction the war caused)...

I can think of 4 million human beings and their descendants who might have a different opinion.

Quote:

That may have been the rhetoric tossed around, but I believe they were fighting for their independence.

Their independence in being able to own slaves.

So if it wasn't slavery, what was the issue that divided North and South then? What Right of the States was it that caused them to secede?

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2011 5:03 am Post subject:

Steelrails wrote:

Quote:

I can think of 4 million human beings and their descendants who might have a different opinion.

Oh really? You've conducted an interview with the descendants of 4 million people and asked if they would have preferred slavery to have been ended through peaceful means as opposed to through a massive, bloody war?

It's irrelevant anyway, since the Northern command wasn't fighting the South over slavery in the first place, therefore it does not justify the war after the fact. I guess I'll have to keep repeating that ad nauseum.

Quote:

That may have been the rhetoric tossed around, but I believe they were fighting for their independence.

Their independence in being able to own slaves.

No. Their independence from the federal government sending troops down to subjugate them.

Quote:

So if it wasn't slavery, what was the issue that divided North and South then? What Right of the States was it that caused them to secede?

I already explained this. It was the general right of states to govern themselves as sovereign entities. They were different cultures. The slavery issue just highlighted the overall societal differences, which were quite significant. It's the same reason Canadians probably wouldn't be very happy if the Federal government sent in troops to force them into the Union (even though they speak the same language etc.). Your assertion that it was only slavery that caused the secession is groundless. Show me any historical proposal by Southern governments to happily submit to federalization and stop their secessions provided the North continue to recognize slavery as a legal institution, and I might take your argument a bit more seriously.

I've already given you direct quotes from Lincoln stating that he didn't care about slavery and would have allowed it to exist as long as the Union were maintained.

Steelrails

Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2011 7:03 am Post subject:

Quote:

Oh please, you mean to seriously suggest that 99.9% of the African-American population isn't happy a war was fought over slavery? Guess what, they could care less what happened to a society that held them in bondage and the people that did so.

I don't think African-Americans are shedding too many tears for Confederates.

Quote:

No. Their independence from the federal government sending troops down to subjugate them.

Because they seceded over slavery.

They did not secede over secession. They seceded because they felt that the country was becoming radicalized under the Republicans and that Lincoln was going to abolish the institution of slavery. They seceded prior to him even taking office.

Quote:

I've already given you direct quotes from Lincoln stating that he didn't care about slavery and would have allowed it to exist as long as the Union were maintained.

And I've given quotes by Alexander Stephens which stated that the Confederate government was founded upon the principle of slavery.

Slavery "is the poor man's best government." "Among us the poor white laborer...does not belong to the menial class. The negro is in no sense his equal...He belongs to the only true aristocracy, the race of white men." Southerners "will never consent to submit to abolition rule...in the event of the abolition of slavery, they would be greater sufferers than the rich."- Governor Joseph Brown of Georgia

"Submit to have our wives and daughters choose between death and gratifying the hellish lust of the negro!...Better ten thousand deaths than submission to Black Republicanism."- Clergyman James Furman

"The division must be made on the line of slavery. The South must go with the South...Blood is thicker than Water." Raleigh Register, May 10, 1861

Quote:

I already explained this. It was the general right of states to govern themselves as sovereign entities.

Powers not enumerated to the Federal Government in the Constitution were delegated to the States. There existed a Constitutional process by which Federal laws could be enacted.

What Act did Lincoln/The Federal Government commit before the Deep Southern States Seceded?

What troops were dispatched to impose order? The only troops in the Seceding States were ones already stationed there. These troops permitted the governments of those states to hold their secession conventions unmolested.

Quote:

Your assertion that it was only slavery that caused the secession is groundless.

It wasn't the only reason that contributed to the intensity of the separation, but I believe it was the only reason that caused the war. Without slavery it is highly doubtful that there would be war, the other issues would not have been enough to bring about secession.

"The voters in 35 Virginia counties with a slave population of only 2.5 percent opposed secession by a margin of 3 to 1, while voters in the remainder of the state, where slaves constituted 36 percent of the population, supported secession by more than 10 to 1." - McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom.

Lame-duck President James Buchanan urged the North to stop criticizing slavery repeal their "unconstitutional and obnoxious" personal liberty laws, obey the fugitive slave law, and join with the South to adopt a constitutional amendment protecting slavery in all the territories. If the North was unwilling to do so the South would be "justified in revolutionary resistance to the Government."

Sounds to me like this conflict was over slavery.

Quote:

Show me any historical proposal by Southern governments to happily submit to federalization and stop their secessions provided the North continue to recognize slavery as a legal institution, and I might take your argument a bit more seriously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crittenden_Compromise

This was the Compromise drafted by the Senate "Committee of Thirteen" which included Robert Toombs, Jefferson Davis, and Stephen Douglas.

"At the center of the cooperationist spectrum stood a group that might be labeled ultimatumists. They urged a convention of southern states to draw up a list of demands for presentation to the incoming Lincoln administration- including enforcement of the fugitive slave law, repeal of personal liberty laws, guarantees against interference with slavery in the District of Columbia or with the interstate slave trade, and protection of slavery in the territories...if Republicans refused this ultimatum (emphasis added), then a united South would go out."- McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom.

Interesting that in all the talk of "States Rights" the right of Northern States to not return fugitive slaves, to have liberty laws that allowed people to shelter slaves without fear of prosecution and slaves to escape from bondage, and the right of a state below 36 30' to hold a popular election to decide if it was a slave state or not were of no interest to the South in its "States Rights" platform.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_liberty_laws

In fact the record prior to the Civil War was that it was the Southerners who were using Federal Power to coerce pro-slavery laws and to trumpt he rights of the States. The South, thanks to the Supreme Court, held a disproportionate amount of Federal power, relative to its population.

Slavery, Slavery, Slavery. It all comes back to that.

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 1:37 am Post subject:

Steelrails wrote:

Quote:

That wasn't the question. The question was whether or not the war was necessary to end slavery. And thanks for admitting you haven't conducted an interview of the descendants of 4 million people and are only presuming to know what they think (in other words, putting words into their mouths).

Quote:

No. Their independence from the federal government sending troops down to subjugate them.

Because they seceded over slavery.

No. Because they seceded, period. It makes no difference whether they seceded over slavery or not, the North was determined to stop any secession regardless. The South was wrong to have slavery, but in hindsight they were correct to want to secede from such a tyrannical central government as Lincoln's. Any government evil enough to wage total war against a civilian population is worth rebelling against.

Quote:

They did not secede over secession. They seceded because they felt that the country was becoming radicalized under the Republicans and that Lincoln was going to abolish the institution of slavery. They seceded prior to him even taking office.

They seceded because they didn't want the federal government telling them what to do. This most certainly includes the issue of slavery, which was by far the most important sticking point, but it was a bit more complicated than that. It was a case of separate cultures disagreeing with each other and not trusting each other, in general. The difference is the South wanted to be left alone and maintain their "way of life" (which included slavery), whereas the leaders in the North wanted to transform the US into an empire, which they did. It was about power, not morals.

Quote:

Not sure in what context that was written, but regardless I'm not denying there was a slavocracy in the South...

Quote:

I already explained this. It was the general right of states to govern themselves as sovereign entities.

Powers not enumerated to the Federal Government in the Constitution were delegated to the States. There existed a Constitutional process by which Federal laws could be enacted.

But only if the states were part of the Union. There was never any provision in the Constitution stating that the Union was permanent, or that states could not leave voluntarily.

Quote:

What Act did Lincoln/The Federal Government commit before the Deep Southern States Seceded?

What troops were dispatched to impose order? The only troops in the Seceding States were ones already stationed there. These troops permitted the governments of those states to hold their secession conventions unmolested.

It doesn't matter. Basically the south had the right to secede even if only out of a perceived threat, or even over something immoral like slavery ("let our erring sisters leave in peace"). They didn't need an "excuse" to secede, like for going to war, they simply wanted to do so (for whatever reason, slavery or otherwise) and that was sufficient. Moreover, federal troops remained in seceded state territory (like Fort Sumter). That would be like the US declaring independence from Britain, and British troops remaining on US soil. Pretty obvious what's going to happen.

Quote:

This is simply not the case, no matter how many times you repeat it. Slavery was probably the cause of secession, but not the cause of the war. There was nothing inevitable about the latter, except that the North wanted to subjugate the South (not over slavery, but to transform American into an empire). I repeat: the North had no right to go to war over the secession in and of itself, and we already know the Northern command didn't care about slavery.

Quote:

"The voters in 35 Virginia counties with a slave population of only 2.5 percent opposed secession by a margin of 3 to 1, while voters in the remainder of the state, where slaves constituted 36 percent of the population, supported secession by more than 10 to 1." - McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom.

Side issue, but I would actually support individual counties seceding from states as well.

Quote:

Lame-duck President James Buchanan urged the North to stop criticizing slavery repeal their "unconstitutional and obnoxious" personal liberty laws, obey the fugitive slave law, and join with the South to adopt a constitutional amendment protecting slavery in all the territories. If the North was unwilling to do so the South would be "justified in revolutionary resistance to the Government."

Sounds to me like this conflict was over slavery.

Sounds to me like this conflict was about who makes the laws, and who rules over whom in general.

Quote:

Okay, fair enough.

Quote:

Interesting that in all the talk of "States Rights" the right of Northern States to not return fugitive slaves, to have liberty laws that allowed people to shelter slaves without fear of prosecution and slaves to escape from bondage, and the right of a state below 36 30' to hold a popular election to decide if it was a slave state or not were of no interest to the South in its "States Rights" platform.

The South was wrong in this regard. I'm not denying that there was a slavocracy in the South or that it was totally wicked. Still not a reason to go to war.

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_liberty_laws

In fact the record prior to the Civil War was that it was the Southerners who were using Federal Power to coerce pro-slavery laws and to trumpt he rights of the States. The South, thanks to the Supreme Court, held a disproportionate amount of Federal power, relative to its population.

Yes, which is why I would take the side of the North in the debate over things like the fugitive slave law or expanding slavery into new states. But once the Northern command took the country to war to subjugate the South, then I take the South's side (though I would never take their side on the slavery issue itself, it goes without saying).

Quote:

Slavery, Slavery, Slavery. It all comes back to that.

It certainly was the most important single issue in the secession crisis. It was not the cause of the Civil War, however.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Page 5 of 6

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe