Irony in our Nation

[zantax]

@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.

I think it’s very relevant. We may be headed that way today ourselves.

[Meriweather]

@JayJay

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

Wasn’t even mentioned as a cause of secession.

Read more.

[zantax]

@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?

Sure, we agree. They had a right to secede but not in the way they did.

[Borgia_dude]

@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.

The opinion on slavery was not constant over all those years of slavery. It evolved.

[zantax]

@Borgia_dude

@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.

The opinion on slavery was not constant over all those years of slavery. It evolved.

Evolved to the point they were willing to curb the south’s political power over time so that it could eventually be abolished. Not to the point of going to war to free them. People give far too much credit to the north in regard to their motives for going to war.

[party-free]

@Meriweather

Rather, how do we feel, today, about States Rights, about the First Amendment covering the abolition and institution of a new government.

Well, the problem is that your thread was started on the fallacy that the war wasn’t about slavery.

They were concerned with exactly one “state right” and that was the “state right” to have slavery, and they were interested in forming a new government that allowed it.

And as has been mentioned repeatedly in other threads, the states specifically told us that in their articles of secssion. We don’t even have to guess. It’s not a question, and it’s not up for debate, because we know EXACTLY that the “state right” they were fighting for was the “right” to own another person.

@Meriweather

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?

We already did this thread, too:

Peaceful breakup of the Union

I hope this thread brings discussion and not just frivolous ridicule. The people in the U.S. have been drifting apart for the past 20 years according to Pew Research at and alarming rate. Partisanship is at all time high, as is one sided social unrest (at the moment). If interested look at the Pew polls attached the vast majority of both republicans and democrats want little to do with each other and have little to no shared values. We are divided on almost every issue according to the research …

[party-free]

Read the articles of secession themselves. The states are very clear about why they’re leaving the union. The words “slavery” and “negro” appear about 90 times between the articles of GA, TX, MS, VA, and SC.

MS wasn’t even coy about it. They came right out with it:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.

And ended with:

We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.

They directly state that they are leaving the union in order to start a new nation to maintain slavery.

“States rights” and the rest is a distraction.

[party-free]

@zantax

People give far too much credit to the north in regard to their motives for going to war.

People refuse to acknowledge the motive of the south for going to war, when the article of secession directly tell us why. The states that left the union didn’t even try to sugarcoat it-they just used a lot of fancy words to justify it.

Truth isn’t truth. The reasons they TOLD US they were leaving the union apparently aren’t the actual reasons they left the union.

[SixFoot]

The federal government won the war against the individual states, and that’s what libs love most about it.

[Meriweather]

@party-free

And as has been mentioned repeatedly in other threads, the states specifically told us that in their articles of secssion. We don’t even have to guess. It’s not a question, and it’s not up for debate, because we know EXACTLY that the “state right” they were fighting for was the “right” to own another person.

And you believe every individual in the South was aligned with that particular article of secession? You say that every Southerner was in lockstep with this?

Sometimes it is interesting to research deeper into issues than the political. On both sides.

[party-free]

Not quite.

The United States won a war against the Confederate States. And I think we should ALL love that, because it means that a nation was not allowed to be founded on the sole premise of maintaining slavery, as mentioned in the closing of Mississippi’s articles:

We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.

[Meriweather]

@party-free

We already did this thread, too:

No problem with moving on.

[zantax]

@party-free

@zantax

People give far too much credit to the north in regard to their motives for going to war.

People refuse to acknowledge the motive of the south for going to war, when the article of secession directly tell us why. The states that left the union didn’t even try to sugarcoat it-they just used a lot of fancy words to justify it.

Truth isn’t truth. The reasons they TOLD US they were leaving the union apparently aren’t the actual reasons they left the union.

I wonder how many times I have to say the south seceded and fought for slavery before you hear it?

[party-free]

These topics are literally being litigated across a dozen other threads. Just thought you’d like you know.

[Meriweather]

@SixFoot

The federal government won the war against the individual states, and that’s what libs love most about it.

…

[Steel-W0LF]

The real question that will answer the question this topic poses is: had Ft Sumpter not happened, would there have been a war?

I’m honestly not sure, and the answer is really an opinion since no one in the decision making cycle from that time is around to ask.

I think both sides were itching to fight, but what if Sumter never happened and the south just did their own thing and ignored the North?

[party-free]

With caveats,

[SixFoot]

Yes quite. The 9th and 10th amendments have been all but dead ever since.

[Meriweather]

@zantax

I wonder how many times I have to say the south seceded and fought for slavery before you hear it?

Some of us (definitely you as well) like to dig deeper into underlying issues and causes. It takes nothing from the slavery issue, it simply delves more deeply.

[zantax]

@party-free

With caveats,

No caveats. Why the south went to war and why the north did are not the same. Sorry if that upsets you.