Irony in our Nation

[Meriweather]

@Nemesis

I bought into the states right lie when I first moved to the US. Had some friends who were well educated who “educated” me on this. Then I got to know them better and discovered their true racist views.

Two separate issues. There are States rights issues that have nothing to do with racism. For example, take a look at what is occurring. Would you call people occupying that six blocks of Seattle racists because they believe they are exercising their rights as they understand the Constitution?

That is not to say that there have not been similar instances of racists who wish to hide behind that same freedom.

The question worth considering (both then and now) is what is the highest priority? A United states, or a free dissolution whenever any group of people take over any area, be it a few city blocks or an entire state? Remember, that had been talk in California of that state becoming its own nation since it has one of the largest economies.

[zantax]

@JayJay

@zantax

Actually both are true. The south fought for slavery, the north fought against secession.

Without slavery, secession wouldn’t have happened.

And? Doesn’t change what each side was fighting for. The north didn’t fight to free the slaves, that is revisionist history just as much as saying the south didn’t fight for slavery.

[Meriweather]

@Borgia_dude

What? Perhaps you should read the secessionist documents of the time to get first hand accounts from the leaders themselves?

Sigh. I have. And why did they believe they had the right to secede? The First Amendment. Why did some who did not own slave, and were even against it, side with the South? The First Amendment.

[Meriweather]

@zantax

Actually both are true. The south fought for slavery, the north fought against secession.

Well said. The South felt they had the right to both. Everyone is in agreement they had no right to slavery. Did they have the right to secede?

[zantax]

@Meriweather

@zantax

Actually both are true. The south fought for slavery, the north fought against secession.

Well said. The South felt they had the right to both. Everyone is in agreement they had no right to slavery. Did they have the right to secede?

Yes, they did. Consent of the governed. No way the states would have ever ratified the constitution if they thought otherwise.

[ImRightYoureWrong]

This thread is such trash. “State’s Rights”. The right to do what? What rights were being taken away from the states. Oh, yea. THE RIGHT TO OWN SLAVES. Who cares about black rights, it’s all about the slave state’s rights. What a load. If it were states enslaving white Christians against their will, you wouldn’t be here trying to rationalize it.

[zantax]

@ImRightYoureWrong

This thread is such trash. “State’s Rights”. The right to do what? What rights were being taken away from the states. Oh, yea. THE RIGHT TO OWN SLAVES. Who cares about black rights, it’s all about the slave state’s rights. What a load. If it were states enslaving white Christians against their will, you wouldn’t be here trying to rationalize it.

How am I trying to rationalize anything. I clearly said the south fought for slavery, not states rights.

[ImRightYoureWrong]

They didn’t have the right to secede to enslave Americans either. Boo hoo.

[party-free]

We already did this thread.

Just remember the Confederates were Democrats

If you’re opposed to the removal of statues of Confederate soldiers or politicians, then just remember that, as progressives/liberals are told all the time, the Confederacy was a creation of the Democrats. That should make you sleep better at night.

[Meriweather]

@zantax

How am I trying to rationalize anything. I clearly said the south fought for slavery, not states rights.

There was also the financial issue. The North wanted tariffs on any goods other than their own, which did hurt the South. One location growing richer and more powerful while the other grows poorer and less powerful has ever been a traditional instigator of war. In the South was the issue of feeling they were being brow-beaten by the North. Whether this feeling was justified can be debated. In either case, it still does not justify slavery.

[zantax]

@ImRightYoureWrong

They didn’t have the right to secede to enslave Americans either. Boo hoo.

They either had a right to secede or they didn’t, No good reason required.

[ImRightYoureWrong]

No they did not have a right to enslave AMERICAN CITIZENS. That’s what their secession meant. Slavery of AMERICAN CITIZENS. It was thr North’s obligation under law to protect AMERICAN CITIZENS from slavery.

[JayJay]

@Meriweather

@zantax

How am I trying to rationalize anything. I clearly said the south fought for slavery, not states rights.

There was also the financial issue. The North wanted tariffs on any goods other than their own, which did hurt the South. One location growing richer and more powerful while the other grows poorer and less powerful has ever been a traditional instigator of war. In the South was the issue of feeling they were being brow-beaten by the North. Whether this feeling was justified can be debated. In either case, it still does not justify slavery.

That was in the 1830s and was resolved through negotiation.

Wasn’t even mentioned as a cause of secession.

[Borgia_dude]

@Meriweather

The South believed they were exercising their Constitutional rights to go their own way.

Nothing in the Constitution allows for secession. The Supreme Court has ruled as such. What the South was attempting to do was illegal without the consent of the states as a whole.

[mobulis]

@zantax

@ImRightYoureWrong

They didn’t have the right to secede to enslave Americans either. Boo hoo.

They either had a right to secede or they didn’t, No good reason required.

Whether they had the right is irrelevant.

[zantax]

@Borgia_dude

@Meriweather

The South believed they were exercising their Constitutional rights to go their own way.

Nothing in the Constitution allows for secession. The Supreme Court has ruled as such. What the South was attempting to do was illegal without the consent of the states as a whole.

That they tried to do it in an illegal manner doesn’t mean they didn’t have a right to do it legally.

[Borgia_dude]

@Meriweather

@Borgia_dude

What? Perhaps you should read the secessionist documents of the time to get first hand accounts from the leaders themselves?

Sigh. I have. And why did they believe they had the right to secede? The First Amendment. Why did some who did not own slave, and were even against it, side with the South? The First Amendment.

Had you read them there is no way you could lead your OP with this:

@Meriweather

The War Between the States was not fought over slavery

[Meriweather]

@party-free

We already did this thread.

Hope it travels a different direction. I am not after political parties lining up pointing fingers. Rather, how do we feel, today, about States Rights, about the First Amendment covering the abolition and institution of a new government.

And, of course the irony of erasing the names of historical people who tried to do just that.

How do we feel about the United States, and those who try to separate from it? Should we, as a nation, be seriously considering this option, and if so, the ways (and the costs) of doing so?

[Meriweather]

@Borgia_dude

Had you read them there is no way you could lead your OP with this:

Have you read the rest of what I wrote? And others? In all the years of slavery, no one went to war until secession.

[Borgia_dude]

@zantax

@Borgia_dude

@Meriweather

The South believed they were exercising their Constitutional rights to go their own way.

Nothing in the Constitution allows for secession. The Supreme Court has ruled as such. What the South was attempting to do was illegal without the consent of the states as a whole.

That they tried to do it in an illegal manner doesn’t mean they didn’t have a right to do it legally.

So we agree that the South illegally tried to secede from the nation. Perhaps they should have thought of legal pathways before jumping to illegal methods?