The American Civil War

[Bornisia]

It was the priniciple of it, many Southern leaders were offended by the invasion of Northern policies on such institions, the turbulent years even before the war had split the nation, and the more slave states or territories then the better the Southern faction would be in terms of influence in the Government. The free states challenged this which led to civil hostilities and briefly halted with compromises.

So the War occurred because the North dared hold a different opinion on slavery than the South?

"Dared"? No, it was the result of a secession and attack upon a Union Fort called Fort Sumter. Which was the result of the secession and rift that had embroiled the nation and government.

[Numer]

No, but I think states should make most decisions on matters other than slavery. E.g. Prohibition. They could've of just opted to turn it over to the states.

Why? Why should provinces have the rights of countries?

It allows more political diversity throughout the nation. E.g. This state doesn't want healthcare, this one does, you chose to live in the one that agrees with your political beliefs.

[Des-Bal]

The only things states use their rights to do is take away the rights of their citizens.

Nice blanket statement.

Please show me an instance of a state using it's powers to give you extra bonus rights.

[Alien Space Bats]

FWIW, Rick Rollin must die for continually breaking this thread with his evil malformed spoiler tags.

<working on next post>

[Laerod]

So basically, the case is even more water-tight than the US claim to Guantanamo Bay.

Is that really relevant? It's one thing to acknowledge federal government ownership of something while you're within that government, when countries go independent they tend to view government property as transferring to them.

(Of course they should have sent a politely worded 'sod off' before firing on the place).

The Guantanamo Bay lease is from the Batista government. The Castro regime doesn't recognize it. The situations are almost entirely identical, with the exception that Cuba has the better claim than the CSA did because it's a lease and there's no court case deciding the matter.

[Wamitoria]

Nice blanket statement.

Please show me an instance of a state using it's powers to give you extra bonus rights.

Medical marijuana. The only example, and it's ironically opposed by many people who claim to be in favor of states' rights.

[Laerod]

FWIW, Rick Rollin must die for continually breaking this thread with his evil malformed spoiler tags.

<working on next post>

Been reported. Gotta wait and see what happens.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Nice blanket statement.

Please show me an instance of a state using it's powers to give you extra bonus rights.

In here just in Article II see points number 3, 4, 8, 9, 10 (written, not "found" as it is in the national constitution), 15, 18, 27, 28, 29,

[Des-Bal]

Medical marijuana. The only example, and it's ironically opposed by many people who claim to be in favor of states' rights.

That's not so much the state enumerating you a right as it is the others denying it. State laws don't really stipulate what you can do so much as they limit the rights that the federal government grants.

[PapaJacky]

Though Egalitarianism isn't exactly an old thing, it wasn't a popular thing back in the ACW (American Civil War).

For the most part, the North were Abolitionists, but they weren't Egalitarians. This essentially means that they supported the end of slavery, but for the most part, did not feel as friendly to African Americans in regards to other civil liberties.

It may of course, be simply the dichotomy of every day life, in that, no place or culture will ever push completely in one direction, and that, few or more of the same culture will lash back and pull the other way.

Irregardless, it's apparent that in the North back in the ACW, African Americans were generally seen as less than men, though, more than a slave.

There are also other motivations to be examined.

Like any good society, there's an economic hierarchy of production and consumption. In the North, you had Manufacturers and Banker barons. In the South, you had Cotton and Tobacco barons. Each, though minorities, controlled vast socio-political and of course, economic 'territories'. And of course, like any production scheme, each had their own base. The Manufacturer's base happened to be mechanization. The Cotton's base were of course, slaves. One can analogize then, the sheer importance of slavery in the South, disregarding the Egalitarian aspect of it, by thinking, "Oh, how would the North had felt if railroads were illegal?" Of course, if such were so, Northern factories would of closed faster than Atlanta burnt.

In fact, the classic "Agrarian v. Industrialist" clash that I represented happens again a mere 10 years after the end of Reconstruction with the Interstate Commerce Act. As an American in general, disregarding the Egalitarian argument, it would seem that the Civil War merely ended the reign of the Cotton King and in it's place, came the Railroad Baron.

A memory of my US History class was an activity we did to represent the Antebellum period. The class (of 30 or so) were split into 3 groups, the North, the South, and the West. We were playing Congresspeople, and the objective was to negotiate with the various sides to pass laws through Congress that which met or surpassed criteria that was given to us in secret. So say, the South had to pass an act that which expanded the Homestead Act to guarantee 160 acres of land, etc. I was in the South, and knowing how politics worked, I quickly attacked the Western delegates and bartered with them with the simple "quid pro quo", "we'd vote for your bills, if you voted for ours". It worked.

That recollection is there to prove a point. The argument of who was more right, the North or the South, could only end in one way, thanks in part, due to the Egalitarianism in our modern life (it's the North). But at the end of the day, taking everything into consideration, which was better, the Union or the Confederacy? The answer, in my head, is neither, and it is the West.

This point is proven later in history. In 1920, the 19th Amendment was passed in the U.S., guaranteeing suffrage to women. However, for the most part, Western states/territories as of the Civil War had already guaranteed suffrage to women far before the 19th Amendment was passed.

In general, the West, and the idea of "the West", is the real winner in my book. The idea of escaping from all the bi-party politics, black and white thought and doublethought, etc. So, to answer your question, I'd join the Union, simply so that I can stay in my California, and not really do anything.

[Forsakia]

Is that really relevant? It's one thing to acknowledge federal government ownership of something while you're within that government, when countries go independent they tend to view government property as transferring to them.

(Of course they should have sent a politely worded 'sod off' before firing on the place).

The Guantanamo Bay lease is from the Batista government. The Castro regime doesn't recognize it. The situations are almost entirely identical, with the exception that Cuba has the better claim than the CSA did because it's a lease and there's no court case deciding the matter.

By which you mean the justification is we have a bigger army than you (not that that was an unusual for the 19th century of course) with the difference that Cuba has a clearer sense of this.

[Laerod]

The Guantanamo Bay lease is from the Batista government. The Castro regime doesn't recognize it. The situations are almost entirely identical, with the exception that Cuba has the better claim than the CSA did because it's a lease and there's no court case deciding the matter.

By which you mean the justification is we have a bigger army than you (not that that was an unusual for the 19th century of course) with the difference that Cuba has a clearer sense of this.

Nope. Legal justification is what I'm referring to.

[Genivaria]

Though Egalitarianism isn't exactly an old thing, it wasn't a popular thing back in the ACW (American Civil War).

For the most part, the North were Abolitionists, but they weren't Egalitarians. This essentially means that they supported the end of slavery, but for the most part, did not feel as friendly to African Americans in regards to other civil liberties.

It may of course, be simply the dichotomy of every day life, in that, no place or culture will ever push completely in one direction, and that, few or more of the same culture will lash back and pull the other way.

Irregardless, it's apparent that in the North back in the ACW, African Americans were generally seen as less than men, though, more than a slave.

There are also other motivations to be examined.

Like any good society, there's an economic hierarchy of production and consumption. In the North, you had Manufacturers and Banker barons. In the South, you had Cotton and Tobacco barons. Each, though minorities, controlled vast socio-political and of course, economic 'territories'. And of course, like any production scheme, each had their own base. The Manufacturer's base happened to be mechanization. The Cotton's base were of course, slaves. One can analogize then, the sheer importance of slavery in the South, disregarding the Egalitarian aspect of it, by thinking, "Oh, how would the North had felt if railroads were illegal?" Of course, if such were so, Northern factories would of closed faster than Atlanta burnt.

In fact, the classic "Agrarian v. Industrialist" clash that I represented happens again a mere 10 years after the end of Reconstruction with the Interstate Commerce Act. As an American in general, disregarding the Egalitarian argument, it would seem that the Civil War merely ended the reign of the Cotton King and in it's place, came the Railroad Baron.

A memory of my US History class was an activity we did to represent the Antebellum period. The class (of 30 or so) were split into 3 groups, the North, the South, and the West. We were playing Congresspeople, and the objective was to negotiate with the various sides to pass laws through Congress that which met or surpassed criteria that was given to us in secret. So say, the South had to pass an act that which expanded the Homestead Act to guarantee 160 acres of land, etc. I was in the South, and knowing how politics worked, I quickly attacked the Western delegates and bartered with them with the simple "quid pro quo", "we'd vote for your bills, if you voted for ours". It worked.

That recollection is there to prove a point. The argument of who was more right, the North or the South, could only end in one way, thanks in part, due to the Egalitarianism in our modern life (it's the North). But at the end of the day, taking everything into consideration, which was better, the Union or the Confederacy? The answer, in my head, is neither, and it is the West.

This point is proven later in history. In 1920, the 19th Amendment was passed in the U.S., guaranteeing suffrage to women. However, for the most part, Western states/territories as of the Civil War had already guaranteed suffrage to women far before the 19th Amendment was passed.

In general, the West, and the idea of "the West", is the real winner in my book. The idea of escaping from all the bi-party politics, black and white thought and doublethought, etc. So, to answer your question, I'd join the Union, simply so that I can stay in my California, and not really do anything.

An interesting twist and I like your argument.

[Arumdaum]

Even though I would have supported the Union, I'm not a fighter. I wouldn't have fought for either side.

[Frisbeeteria]

Who messed up the spoilers?

You did. *** Warned for spoiler spam *** by deliberately screwing with tag text and making more work for the mods. It's not amusing.

[Forsakia]

By which you mean the justification is we have a bigger army than you (not that that was an unusual for the 19th century of course) with the difference that Cuba has a clearer sense of this.

Nope. Legal justification is what I'm referring to.

Cuba thinks the US is occupying the land illegally. When governments think someone's occupying land illegally they usually move them off it, but with Guantanamo they can't.

[Laerod]

Nope. Legal justification is what I'm referring to.

Cuba thinks the US is occupying the land illegally. When governments think someone's occupying land illegally they usually move them off it, but with Guantanamo they can't.

It's kinda irrelevant what Cuba thinks. Just like it's irrelevant what the South thought. The law's the law. Neither Cuba nor the South could just renegotiate the terms without the permission of the other party simply because management changed.

[Noobubersland]

Why? Why should provinces have the rights of countries?

It allows more political diversity throughout the nation. E.g. This state doesn't want healthcare, this one does, you chose to live in the one that agrees with your political beliefs.

No offence, but that sounds really shitty, why should someone by turned away from hospital in one province for not having enough money but not the other? Why should people have to move from their homes if, say Kansas passes a law to make it illegal to be gay?

[TaQud]

It allows more political diversity throughout the nation. E.g. This state doesn't want healthcare, this one does, you chose to live in the one that agrees with your political beliefs.

No offence, but that sounds really shitty, why should someone by turned away from hospital in one province for not having enough money but not the other? Why should people have to move from their homes if, say Kansas passes a law to make it illegal to be gay?

The world is a bowl of fruit loops? (my best guess)

[Noobubersland]

It's kinda irrelevant what Cuba thinks. Just like it's irrelevant what the South thought. The law's the law. Neither Cuba nor the South could just renegotiate the terms without the permission of the other party simply because management changed.

I don't know, Cuba got screwed out of that land in the first place, america imposed some really bullshit terms of Cuban independence, the bay area is part of that. That agreement was torn it (and rightly so) by Castro and his ilk

[Kalibarr]

Seeing as I'm opposed to slavery: The Union.

[Forsakia]

Cuba thinks the US is occupying the land illegally. When governments think someone's occupying land illegally they usually move them off it, but with Guantanamo they can't.

It's kinda irrelevant what Cuba thinks. Just like it's irrelevant what the South thought. The law's the law. Neither Cuba nor the South could just renegotiate the terms without the permission of the other party simply because management changed.

Special circumstances (really in both given that Guantanamo is annexation of the land by another name). But where land is owned by a government while it governs over an area, when that area declares independence you don't treat the previous government like a private landholder because in this case it isn't one. The federal government in 1841 had South Carolina as a part of it, it was collective ownership.

It's farcical to suggest that when an area declares independence a now foreign government can just keep the military installations in the new country.

[Laerod]

It's kinda irrelevant what Cuba thinks. Just like it's irrelevant what the South thought. The law's the law. Neither Cuba nor the South could just renegotiate the terms without the permission of the other party simply because management changed.

Special circumstances (really in both given that Guantanamo is annexation of the land by another name). But where land is owned by a government while it governs over an area, when that area declares independence you don't treat the previous government like a private landholder because in this case it isn't one. The federal government in 1841 had South Carolina as a part of it, it was collective ownership.

Did you not read the link I posted? South Carolina, not the Federal Government, gave the area Ft. Sumter was built on to the Federal Government. The Government of South Carolina gave the United States that property.

It's farcical to suggest that when an area declares independence a now foreign government can just keep the military installations in the new country.

No, why? A foreign power might consider their position untenable and abandon something they have a legal right to or the new government of the independent area might let an agreement run out. Neither of those applies here though. A country is still the successor to its predecessors' agreements; commitments don't just vanish because there's new management.

[Wamitoria]

When governments think someone's occupying land illegally they usually move them off it, but with Guantanamo they can't.

Rightly so, because it would in violation of the terms of our lease, which is still valid.

[Forsakia]

Special circumstances (really in both given that Guantanamo is annexation of the land by another name). But where land is owned by a government while it governs over an area, when that area declares independence you don't treat the previous government like a private landholder because in this case it isn't one. The federal government in 1841 had South Carolina as a part of it, it was collective ownership.

Did you not read the link I posted? South Carolina, not the Federal Government, gave the area Ft. Sumter was built on to the Federal Government. The Government of South Carolina gave the United States that property.

It's farcical to suggest that when an area declares independence a now foreign government can just keep the military installations in the new country.

No, why? A foreign power might consider their position untenable and abandon something they have a legal right to or the new government of the independent area might let an agreement run out. Neither of those applies here though. A country is still the successor to its predecessors' agreements; commitments don't just vanish because there's new management.

The Federal government at the time was made up of a collective that included South Carolina. When South Carolina becomes independent it's not new management, it's old management dividing. In essence a little bit of the federal government gets broken off and the new government is the successor to that (as it's the successor of all levels of government in South Carolina) not just the state government.