Did the South have a right to secede?

[Martilia]

They have the right to secede, but the reason forbid them to secede.

[Distruzio]

Completely astounding.

The "Civil War" was NOT about slavery, not for EITHER side. Have none of you ever taken a course in US History at the university level?

For the southern states it certainly was an important factor.

Only insofar as the Union constitutional violations threatened the sustainability of the Southern economy - which was utterly dependent upon the institution. It was a significant issue, but it was not the issue of the conflagration.

[Distruzio]

What the South did was a blatant act of treason. The Civil War was over the issue of slavery, which is morally wrong and could not be allowed to continue to exist in America.

Which would have happened had the South seceded. The Union would have been all but free of the bugaboo.

Any discussion of "State's Rights" is irrelevant when those "rights" are being used to oppress an entire race

You might want to check this out.

[Distruzio]

No, it did not. There is nothing in the US constitution that says a state can leave the Union.

It also doesn't say the federal gov't can regulate airplanes.

This is exactly what Lincoln thought throughout the Civil War, he beleived the southern states had never actually left the Union because it wasn't allowed;

Which begs the question of his invasion, doesn't it? How could the Union invade itself?

Should it have left the Union? Yes and no. The reason the South left was because of constant alienation from both sides of the Mason-Dixon line. With the Republican party, a political entity made up of former free-soilers, former abolitionists, ect, gained power in Congress, it freaked the South out, they were under the impression the Slavery would be made illegal and they would lose their source of man power and labor.

Nonsense. The South was convinced, and the GOP/Lincoln assured them, that the Southern economy would grow no further, based as it was on slavery. With a GOP victory, the South faced economic strangulation and the possibility of renewed pro-industrial tariffs.

The North of course had nothing to lose because its labor came from immigration.

The same immigrants drafted from the boats into war against the South? Is the draft not slavery?

Now, With the election of Lincoln, this was a final straw, not only did these anti-slavery politicians control Congress, they also controlled the presidency.

The GOP did not hold Congressional control until after secession.

However, Lincoln's campaign and actual position on slavery was not to make it illegal, but to save the Union at all costs(his motto during the Civil War).

Which was the problem. The Union only applied to states within it.

Even with the Proclamation of Emancipation, Lincoln wasn't freeing all slaves, he was simply stating his views on slavery to the public and Congress, nothing more. One could debate that it was an executive order i suppose, but IMO it wasn't.

Lincoln freed no one. The 13th amendment freed them.

I could go into that but don't feel like it right now. Basically, going back to the point, the South should not have seceded; it had neither the industrial strength, nor the man power to support a civil war. Just about the only advantage the South had was a reason to fight and defend "their" land.

The South should not have seceded and instigated war, although I can understand their eagerness to get it over with.

[William Delaney III]

The Union lost at least one hundred thousand more people than the Confederacy,

Eh, they're Yankees, they don't count. Besides, you missed the part about North Carolina losing more men in the war than most of the South. I don't think that I have sufficiently emphasized that point. Since you are apparently determined to be as dense as a brick, I'll make it plain enough for even you to grasp.

North Carolina 20,602
Virginia 6,947
Mississippi 6,807
South Carolina 4,760
Arkansas 3,782
Georgia 3,702
Tennessee 3,425
Louisiana 3,059
Texas 1,260
Florida 1,047
Alabama 724

http://www.civilwarhome.com/casualties.htm

which, may I remind you, invaded the Union.

My state sure didn't. The main thing North Carolina did during the Civil War was to die in it. We never wanted in the war, but it was our sons who were sent to die in it. You'll notice, driving through North Carolina, you won't see very many of those "rebel" flags with St. Andrew's Cross on them. That's the reason why. The war was something we were dragged into, and it brought us nothing but misery.

I don't have any love for the Confederacy, but I don't have any love for the Yankee savages who came to destroy my homeland, either.

The whole war was evil. I don't pardon anyone involved. I don't pardon the blind fools in Georgia and South Carolina who thought it would be "gentlemanly" and "honorable," and I don't pardon the barbarians who marched into my homeland and destroyed it. Anyone who thinks there is an excuse for war is mad. There is no point in it. It is unpardonable. There is no darker madness in Mankind.

And given that the Confederate army slaughtered Union troops that had surrendered simply because they were black,

Do you really want to go there?

Besides, people in my particular state, which I think more people should acknowledge as one of the finer states in the US, are generally less racist in their attitudes than most people in your part of the country, you self-righteous Yankee, so eat them apples.

And next time you savages decide to have a war, keep it off my damn turf.

[William Delaney III]

How about some of you self-righteous Yankee morons come down to Raleigh to take a walk through Historic Oakwood Cemetery, and look at some of the graves there. While you're doing so, see if you can think those happy thoughts about how you heroically swept in on a white horse and "freed the slaves." Keep telling yourself it was worthwhile.

Go on thinking those boys deserved to die, and keep on pretending there was no other way you could have settled your damn differences.

[Desori]

Guys? This is not a debate about whether the civil war was justified. This is about whether the South had the constitutional right to leave the Union.

[William Delaney III]

Guys? This is not a debate about whether the civil war was justified. This is about whether the South had the constitutional right to leave the Union.

Like I said in my first post here, you can prove literally anything in a court if you have a good attorney. What people think the law says doesn't mean much. It sure doesn't mean a damn thing to me. I've never seen an example of the law being used honorably or for the purpose for which it was written.

The secession was a deliberately antagonistic gesture by blind fools who wanted to fight a "second war of indepenence." The fools had glorified the "founding fathers" and their revolution against the British Empire. They wanted to cover themselves in glory. They were assholes.

And like I said, my people never wanted it, yet we did most of the dying for their fool cause.

[Desori]

That's a fair point - but it's not the subject of debate. The subject of debate isn't whether they were justified, it's whether they had the right.

[William Delaney III]

That's a fair point - but it's not the subject of debate. The subject of debate isn't whether they were justified, it's whether they had the right.

You have any right you have the guns and will to defend.

[Desori]

See, that's where we part. I think it should be the right of any person or state-to-be to secede, and that the original state shouldn't do anything about it. It should be a right, not something you have to proof through force of arms.

[Dusk_Kittens]

Uh, no, you're not playing my game at all.

1. Attempts to accuse me of racism for pointing out that there were blacks who fought for the Confederacy, when the inhabitants of the North were just as prone to racism as anyone else at the time constitute an inability to see the point being made, and, as is all-too-typical in these discussions, Argumentum ad Hominem.
2. Of course there were blacks sympathetic to the Confederate position, but they were neither quislings nor collaborators, because the Confederate position was not adopted on the basis of slavery per se, but on the bases of Anti-Federalism and the nullification, by certain Northern states, of the Constitution. That this nullification concerned slavery is a moot point, because South Carolina had already threatened to secede over an issue that had nothing at all to do with slavery, and would have seized upon any act of nullification by Northern states as grounds for secession.
3. No, it doesn't. It does, however, form an inconvenient truth for those who insist that the war was motivated by racial concerns and/or concerns over slavery.
4. I've given more than enough other evidence previously; the fact of blacks fighting for the Confederacy is simply a fact worth considering in addition to the other evidence. The revisionism consists in claims that the Confederate Naval Jack is a symbol of racism and/or pro-slavery beliefs and needs to be prohibited.

1, Who accused you of racism?
2, >war fought between slave states and non slave states. >slavery abolished following said war. >slavery is moot point. Whut?
3, You mean aside from Southern rhetoric that loudly and proudly proclaimed that "were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race"?
4, The Confederate Naval Jack, regardless of what it meant then, now is a symbol of racism and/or pro-slavery beliefs. I don't believe it should be prohibited, but what it means now is what's important, rather than what it meant then.

1. What guile is this? In response to my pointing out that there were blacks who fought on the side of the Confederacy, you posted this. While not an outright accusation, it is certainly an implicit one.

2. Yes, slavery is a moot point, because the issue was not slavery. The issues were:

• a. the Anti-Federalist beliefs of the South vs. the Federalist beliefs of the North
• b. the violation of the Constitution by Northern states (no matter in what particular, they were violating the Constitution, which meant, to South Carolina and others who preferred confederation over federation, that any particular in the document was equally at risk of being violated, and also that the entire document had been nullified by the actions of the Northern states in violation thereof
• c. sectionalism in the nation, which meant that one section of the nation had its own interests and positions on issues determined by those interests, and therefore, had an agenda that was likely to favor that section of the nation, to the detriment of any other section of the nation
• d. the rise to power of the Republican Party, which favored the industrialists of the industrialized North over the agrarian economy of the rural South (there's that sectionalism thing again, but this is a bit more than that, in that the Republican Party was in favor of Big Business, then as now, and Big Business then was vested in Northern factories, and thus the Republicans would support high tariffs in order to "protect" the "unfortunate" wealthy industrialists' interests over the interests of the agrarian South).

The fact that b. involved a part of the Constitution dealing with slavery is only relevant insofar as it was that part that was being violated; South Carolina had threatened to secede previously over the Tariffs, but was threatened with military enforcement if they tried, a threat that served only to drive the wedge deeper between North and South, and strengthen the Anti-Federalist resolve of the South, which then began seeking an excuse to secede that they felt would be incapable of challenge by the Federal government. What they found was that several Northern states, and individuals within those states, were violating Article IV, Section 2, paragraph 3 of the Constitution, a paragraph which guaranteed not only the existence of slavery within the USA, but also guaranteed that fugitive slaves who escaped to non-slaveholding states were to be restored to their "owners," and not harbored by anti-slavery state governments or persons. I feel compelled to point out, again, that this was part of the Constitution at the time, repealed only after the war. Violation of this -- OR ANY -- portion of the Constitution by any state was, according to the compact "theory" of the Federal Democratic Republic established by the Constitution, sufficient to render the entire Constitution null and void, and no longer binding on any state. There are those who reject the compact "theory" in reference to the Constitution, most if not all of whom are pro-Federalist in the matter of the so-called "Civil War," but whether they reject it or not, the State of South Carolina certainly did not, and so that State believed that they had a legal justification to secede.

3. Would you like to familiarize yourself with Northern attitudes toward blacks at the time leading up to, during, and after the war? I think you'll find -- nay, I know you'll find -- that the only substantial difference is that there were more Northerners opposed to the institution of slavery (which was not, I should point out, limited to the enslavement of blacks), while still regarding blacks as inferior, sub-human, and assorted other sordid notions. There were states in the South in which slavery was of very marginal relevance, by the way, as the numbers of slaves in those states were quite small. Following the war, some blacks expected to migrate northwards to find acceptance as fellow human beings, only to be disappointed with what they found there.

4. No, the Confederate Naval Jack is now, for a handful of hate-mongering nutjobs (many of whom dwell in the North, btw), and a growing number of minorities and disciples of "Political Correctness," a symbol of racism and/or pro-slavery beliefs, because it was usurped by racist organizations. Many of those organizations have also usurped Germanic runes, the Celtic cross, and other symbols which have no racist connotations for most people (and you don't find people agitating for those symbols to be prohibited). It has not yet reached the point of the Swastika or Fylfot (the Swastika being an ancient Hindu symbol, and the Fylfot being an ancient Germanic Heathen symbol, without any connection to racism -- the same symbol also has an ancient pedigree among Native Americans, by other names, again without any racist connotations), which is now almost invariably associated with Nazism and anti-semitism, although certain persons have endeavored to make the Confederate Naval Jack equally symbolic of racism.

For many people, throughout the US, the flag is a symbol of nothing other than the ideal of the "rebel" (here not referring to the so-called "Rebels" of the South, but the whole Rock 'n' Roll, biker, James Dean package of counter-cultural "rebellion"). For others, it's a symbol of the South and Southern culture. For others, it's a symbol that represents a belief that decentralized (confederate) government is preferable to centralized (federal) government. For very few, it is a symbol of racism and/or pro-slavery beliefs, and/or so-called "White Pride" (a euphemism for "White Supremacy"). But for a growing number of blacks and white liberals burdened by "white guilt," and those devotees of never saying or depicting or doing anything that might offend someone (unless, of course, that someone is a Southerner who appears to be white, in which case, they're fair game -- an attitude laying bare the hypocrisy of advocates of the "Political Correctness" movement), it represents something which they find offensive to themselves, or potentially offensive to others. Intent is everything. Perhaps, instead of reacting based on assumptions about what any given person intends by display of that flag, people ought to ask them what they mean by displaying it. If I were to display the flag in question (and I don't), I would do so with the intent to represent the ideal of decentralized government as preferable to centralized government, because that is what it means to me.

I will add a disclaimer: I currently reside in the American south, in one of those states which was part of the CSA, and I reside here not by choice, but by force of circumstance. I'm not from this state, and I plan to eventually leave this state and move back to the north, or to another nation entirely, for reasons wholly unrelated to racism, slavery, or the actual Confederate cause.

[William Delaney III]

See, that's where we part. I think it should be the right of any person or state-to-be to secede, and that the original state shouldn't do anything about it. It should be a right, not something you have to proof through force of arms.

Only if you can get people to believe it, and only the force of poetry can do that. Maybe someday we'll start composing beautiful ballads and hymns about peace, and we'll forget the words to the ones that were about war.

[Desori]

We'll only do that if we start now Changes come through action, not the other way around.

[William Delaney III]

We'll only do that if we start now Changes come through action, not the other way around.

I'm Hellenistic enough to believe that words are powerful in their own right.

[Desori]

Therefore, advocate peace. Peace with no compromise. Peace in the face of war. Peace in the face of death. This is the only way peace will come about. While there are still people who prepare for war, war will always happen. Peace will not start at state level, but from the people.

[William Delaney III]

Therefore, advocate peace. Peace with no compromise. Peace in the face of war. Peace in the face of death. This is the only way peace will come about. While there are still people who prepare for war, war will always happen. Peace will not start at state level, but from the people.

Huzzah.

[William Delaney III]

If anyone thinks it's strange that I have such intense pride in my state, by the way, do a little research on why Durham, NC, was the site of the largest ever surrender of Confederate soldiers. It might surprise you. Think about what's near Durham.

[Xsyne]

The Union lost at least one hundred thousand more people than the Confederacy,

Eh, they're Yankees, they don't count. Besides, you missed the part about North Carolina losing more men in the war than most of the South. I don't think that I have sufficiently emphasized that point. Since you are apparently determined to be as dense as a brick, I'll make it plain enough for even you to grasp.

North Carolina 20,602
Virginia 6,947
Mississippi 6,807
South Carolina 4,760
Arkansas 3,782
Georgia 3,702
Tennessee 3,425
Louisiana 3,059
Texas 1,260
Florida 1,047
Alabama 724

http://www.civilwarhome.com/casualties.htm

which, may I remind you, invaded the Union.

My state sure didn't. The main thing North Carolina did during the Civil War was to die in it. We never wanted in the war, but it was our sons who were sent to die in it. You'll notice, driving through North Carolina, you won't see very many of those "rebel" flags with St. Andrew's Cross on them. That's the reason why. The war was something we were dragged into, and it brought us nothing but misery.

I don't have any love for the Confederacy, but I don't have any love for the Yankee savages who came to destroy my homeland, either.

The whole war was evil. I don't pardon anyone involved. I don't pardon the blind fools in Georgia and South Carolina who thought it would be "gentlemanly" and "honorable," and I don't pardon the barbarians who marched into my homeland and destroyed it. Anyone who thinks there is an excuse for war is mad. There is no point in it. It is unpardonable. There is no darker madness in Mankind.

And given that the Confederate army slaughtered Union troops that had surrendered simply because they were black,

Do you really want to go there?

Besides, people in my particular state, which I think more people should acknowledge as one of the finer states in the US, are generally less racist in their attitudes than most people in your part of the country, you self-righteous Yankee, so eat them apples.

And next time you savages decide to have a war, keep it off my damn turf.

Cry me a fucking river. North Carolina chose to join the Confederacy. If they didn't want to fight then all they had to do was not fight.

[Honorable Citizens]

They had the right to secede. The North infringed on their rights and went to war with them. I am not saying that the North was wrong, but if you look at it from a neutral point of view, I think the North infringed on their rights as states.

[Xsyne]

Ah, yes, the much-publicized Fort Pillow massacre led by Nathan Bedford Forrest. I'm not sure how I forgot that one. Still, I believe his racist views were not exactly any more typical of the South than they were of the North, at the time. That statement may be shocking to some, but only to those who don't know the history. Yes, it was a massacre, an atrocity, and a war crime, but it doesn't excuse the North's atrocities.

You know, if you actually bothered to follow the conversation, you'd know that I brought up those massacres not to excuse Union atrocities, but to justify why I don't give a damn if Confederate soldiers died.

[Grave_n_idle]

If anyone thinks it's strange that I have such intense pride in my state, by the way, do a little research on why Durham, NC, was the site of the largest ever surrender of Confederate soldiers. It might surprise you. Think about what's near Durham.

A lot of rednecks?

But that's probably not what you mean.

Um.... meth labs?

[Grave_n_idle]

They had the right to secede. The North infringed on their rights and went to war with them. I am not saying that the North was wrong, but if you look at it from a neutral point of view, I think the North infringed on their rights as states.

They had the right to secede... based on what?

[Farnhamia]

Edit: And this has been bugging me: what are "bonobos"?

Bonobos? I don't know, someone ended a post in some thread a week or so ago with, "Also, bonobos." It seemed amusing at the time and I adopted it for my signature. It seems to have spread, in part, I think, in reaction to all the My Little Pony flags.

By the way, you claimed, in capital letters, that the Constitution was being violated to the extreme detriment of the South. If so, there were mechanisms to address those issues in the courts. Given the tenor of the Taney Court, who gave us the Dred Scott Decision, the South's chances were very good of striking down the anti-slavery legislation passed in the North. The Southern leaders did not use those mechanisms but decided to seek redress of their grievances on the battlefield, and we know how that turned out.

[William Delaney III]

Cry me a fucking river.

Then don't expect me to show much concern over the low-bred white trash you sent down here to die. At least not for your benefit. If I talk to someone worth the skin they're stuffed in, I'll have something nicer to say.

North Carolina chose to join the Confederacy.

A bunch of rich assholes chose to join the Confederacy. My people could have done without it.

Like I said, you're a self-righteous Yankee. If you were on fire, I wouldn't piss on you.