NATION

PASSWORD

End the lies: The Confederacy was about slavery

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Yootopia
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8410
Founded: Dec 28, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Yootopia » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:23 pm

My 3rd Floor Flat wrote:In summary. Why, pray, did the U.S.A consider itself as having a right to secede over a disagreement with it's governing body when the Southern states were not considered to have the right to secede because of a disagreement with it's governing body.

Because the USA and CSA are on the same continent, basically.
End the Modigarchy now.

User avatar
Jello Biafra
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6288
Founded: Antiquity
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Jello Biafra » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:26 pm

My 3rd Floor Flat wrote:In summary. Why, pray, did the U.S.A consider itself as having a right to secede over a disagreement with it's governing body when the Southern states were not considered to have the right to secede because of a disagreement with it's governing body.

The right to secede is always there unless the group wishing to secede wants to do so in order to violate human rights.

User avatar
Dempublicents1
Senator
 
Posts: 3963
Founded: Mar 28, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Dempublicents1 » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:27 pm

Camcuda wrote:The war was about slavery but it was more about the southern economy and a way of life for these people.


You mean an economy and way of life built on slave ownership?

My 3rd Floor Flat wrote:In summary. Why, pray, did the U.S.A consider itself as having a right to secede over a disagreement with it's governing body when the Southern states were not considered to have the right to secede because of a disagreement with it's governing body.


The patriotic answer: Britain was doing something worth seceding over. The US government wasn't.
The cynical answer: This time, the governing body won.
"If I poke you with a needle, you feel pain. If I hit you repeatedly in the testicles with a brick, you feel pain. Ergo, the appropriate response to being vaccinated is to testicle-punch your doctor with a brick. It all makes perfect sense now!" -The Norwegian Blue

"In fact, the post was blended with four delicious flavors of sarcasm, then dipped in an insincerity sauce, breaded with mock seriousness, then deep fried in scalding, trans-fat-free-sarcasm oil." - Flameswroth

User avatar
Panzerjaeger
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9856
Founded: Sep 15, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Panzerjaeger » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:27 pm

Jello Biafra wrote:
My 3rd Floor Flat wrote:In summary. Why, pray, did the U.S.A consider itself as having a right to secede over a disagreement with it's governing body when the Southern states were not considered to have the right to secede because of a disagreement with it's governing body.

The right to secede is always there unless the group wishing to secede wants to do so in order to violate human rights.

Slaves weren't even considered human by the Northern Government. :?
Friendly Neighborhood Fascist™
ФАШИЗМ БЕЗГРАНИЧНЫЙ И КРАСНЫЙ
Caninope wrote:Toyota: Keep moving forward, even when you don't want to!

Christmahanikwanzikah wrote:Timothy McVeigh casts... Pyrotechnics!

Greater Americania wrote:lol "No Comrade Ivan! Don't stick your head in there! That's the wood chi...!"

New Kereptica wrote:Fascism: because people are too smart nowadays.

User avatar
Fartsniffage
Post Czar
 
Posts: 32579
Founded: Dec 19, 2005
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Fartsniffage » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:28 pm

Jello Biafra wrote:The right to secede is always there unless the group wishing to secede wants to do so in order to violate human rights.


Is it? What law provides for it?

Legitimate question, not sarcasm.

User avatar
My 3rd Floor Flat
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1344
Founded: Nov 14, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby My 3rd Floor Flat » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:29 pm

Yootopia wrote:
My 3rd Floor Flat wrote:In summary. Why, pray, did the U.S.A consider itself as having a right to secede over a disagreement with it's governing body when the Southern states were not considered to have the right to secede because of a disagreement with it's governing body.

Because the USA and CSA are on the same continent, basically.


Yes... It all makes sense now...

The UK must immediatly annex the Republic of Ireland, Russia must secure it's authority over the former USSR territories, Canada must take control of Alaska, Brazil with it's superior size must come to control South America in it's entirety and we must encourage China in it's suppression and dismantling of Tibetan culture in it's efforts to fully interate it into the PRC.

Really? I was expecting something more insightful, then again, this is NS, perhaps I expected too much. I facepalm in your general direction.
Nadkor wrote: One of the things you'll notice about the BBC is that it gets accused of bias by everyone.

Mad hatters in jeans wrote:
Crabulonia wrote:^ Very pleased that 3rd Floor Flat is voting same as I.

3rd floor flat is pretty sharp so you can count yourself lucky.

User avatar
North Suran
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9974
Founded: Jul 12, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby North Suran » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:31 pm

My 3rd Floor Flat wrote:In summary. Why, pray, did the U.S.A consider itself as having a right to secede over a disagreement with it's governing body when the Southern states were not considered to have the right to secede because of a disagreement with it's governing body.

Because the Northern States won.
Neu Mitanni wrote:As for NS, his latest statement is grounded in ignorance and contrary to fact, much to the surprise of all NSGers.


User avatar
Natapoc
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19864
Founded: Antiquity
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Natapoc » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:32 pm

This is very well written. Thank you. It always angers me to read the arrogant racism that they felt free to articulate in that day. I'm very glad that slavery did not win in the south.

We must remember however that although great gains against slavery and other forms of exploitation have been made all over the world in the last few centuries much remains to be done. There are still many forms of slavery (including the type practiced by the south) in operation today and we must oppose them with the same fever that the north fought the south with.

The war is not over but freedom and justice will win so long as we keep up the fight.
Did you see a ghost?

User avatar
Natapoc
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19864
Founded: Antiquity
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Natapoc » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:35 pm

North Suran wrote:
My 3rd Floor Flat wrote:In summary. Why, pray, did the U.S.A consider itself as having a right to secede over a disagreement with it's governing body when the Southern states were not considered to have the right to secede because of a disagreement with it's governing body.

Because the Northern States won.


Not really. The US left England because it's right of representation was not being honored. This was seen as a fundamental right being violated by england. (of course there were many less noble reasons also)

The south on the other hand wanted to leave the US not because of any infringement on their rights but rather because they wanted to be able to be free to infringe the rights of others.
Did you see a ghost?

User avatar
Fartsniffage
Post Czar
 
Posts: 32579
Founded: Dec 19, 2005
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Fartsniffage » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:36 pm

Natapoc wrote:Not really. The US left England because it's right of representation was not being honored. This was seen as a fundamental right being violated by england. (of course there were many less noble reasons also)

The south on the other hand wanted to leave the US not because of any infringement on their rights but rather because they wanted to be able to be free to infringe the rights of others.


Where was it's right of representation articulated?

User avatar
Jello Biafra
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6288
Founded: Antiquity
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Jello Biafra » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:37 pm

Fartsniffage wrote:
Jello Biafra wrote:The right to secede is always there unless the group wishing to secede wants to do so in order to violate human rights.


Is it? What law provides for it?

Legitimate question, not sarcasm.

I was speaking of the moral right rather than the legal right.
However, "The United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession."
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_ ... ted_States

User avatar
2nd PLT
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1462
Founded: Jul 07, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby 2nd PLT » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:39 pm

Jello Biafra wrote:
My 3rd Floor Flat wrote:In summary. Why, pray, did the U.S.A consider itself as having a right to secede over a disagreement with it's governing body when the Southern states were not considered to have the right to secede because of a disagreement with it's governing body.

The right to secede is always there unless the group wishing to secede wants to do so in order to violate human rights.

EDIT:Never mind, this has already been answered.

North Suran wrote:Because the Northern States won.

^This is the answer to 3rd Floor Flat's question.^

Might may not make right, but it makes happen, and that is kinda more important.

(Aware of bad grammatical/Vocab mistake)

Also, thanks to the OP for trying to put this to an undeniable end. I doubt it will, but the effort was tremendous.
Last edited by 2nd PLT on Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.
President:Me
Vice President:Mana
First lady:Celestial Divinities
Secretary of State:Juthra
Treasurer:American Capitalist
Minister of Interior and Nukes:Kaputer
Minister of Waste Disposal:Toiletdonia
Press Secretary:Sivonaa
General of the Military:Picklepoo

Agreed. But hey, America's never really fought like a gentleman. We're more of a barroom drunk anyway.-Krazniastan
The height of ambition: A man standing on the pacific shore fapping and telling himself: "One day I am gonna fuck that ocean"-Big Jim P
Some people need to work to be made president. 2nd PLT just turns up on polling day.-Johz
Yes, but you have to remember, trolls live in a dimension between two and three, they are flat but appear to have space.-North Wiedna

User avatar
Natapoc
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19864
Founded: Antiquity
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Natapoc » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:42 pm

Fartsniffage wrote:
Natapoc wrote:Not really. The US left England because it's right of representation was not being honored. This was seen as a fundamental right being violated by england. (of course there were many less noble reasons also)

The south on the other hand wanted to leave the US not because of any infringement on their rights but rather because they wanted to be able to be free to infringe the rights of others.


Where was it's right of representation articulated?


This was considered a basic human right. I realize rights have gone out of style lately in favor of nihilism but taxation without representation was seen as a fundamental violation of natural rights.
Did you see a ghost?

User avatar
Yootopia
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8410
Founded: Dec 28, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Yootopia » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:42 pm

My 3rd Floor Flat wrote:
Yootopia wrote:
My 3rd Floor Flat wrote:In summary. Why, pray, did the U.S.A consider itself as having a right to secede over a disagreement with it's governing body when the Southern states were not considered to have the right to secede because of a disagreement with it's governing body.

Because the USA and CSA are on the same continent, basically.


Yes... It all makes sense now...

Mmm yes, please take everything I said and multiply it ad retardedum.

The USA and CSA shared a land border, the USA and UK didn't. As soon as you get random states popping up all over the place in fairly established states, Things Start To Go Wrong. See the entirely unsurprising takeover of Mexico by European powers while the US was distracted. The US was already approaching its proper size by the time of the Civil War, unlike when it was just some shitty towns that wanted to secede.

If you're right next to a country in which Things Are Going Wrong, people are going to be a lot more understanding if you go in and change it than if it's all the way across the sea, especially when that changing is being done against a bunch of hicks who are propping up the slave trade at a time when it was not in fashion.

This is why the US seceeding from the UK was seen by the international community, and has been recorded in posterity, as an Alright Thing, and why the CSA getting its arse kicked by its territorial neighbour has also been recorded as Probably A Good Thing.
End the Modigarchy now.

User avatar
Fartsniffage
Post Czar
 
Posts: 32579
Founded: Dec 19, 2005
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Fartsniffage » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:43 pm

Natapoc wrote:This was considered a basic human right. I realize rights have gone out of style lately in favor of nihilism but taxation without representation was seen as a fundamental violation of natural rights.


What are the narural right and from where do they get their authority?

User avatar
My 3rd Floor Flat
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1344
Founded: Nov 14, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby My 3rd Floor Flat » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:43 pm

2nd PLT wrote:
Jello Biafra wrote:
North Suran wrote:Because the Northern States won.

^This is the answer to 3rd Floor Flat's question.^

Might may not make right, but it makes happen, and that is kinda more important.

(Aware of bad grammatical/Vocab mistake)

Also, thanks to the OP for trying to put this to an undeniable end. I doubt it will, but the effort was tremendous.


True true.

Just cynical nit picking on my part I suppose.
Nadkor wrote: One of the things you'll notice about the BBC is that it gets accused of bias by everyone.

Mad hatters in jeans wrote:
Crabulonia wrote:^ Very pleased that 3rd Floor Flat is voting same as I.

3rd floor flat is pretty sharp so you can count yourself lucky.

User avatar
Yootopia
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8410
Founded: Dec 28, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Yootopia » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:44 pm

Natapoc wrote:Not really. The US left England BRITAIN because it's right of representation was not being honored.

Yeah but since the US had no desire for representation other than as its own country, it could frankly fuck right off.

"We want representation"
"OK why not join in in parliament"
"Because we don't want that"
"Well then you don't want representation at all"
"SHHHHH"
End the Modigarchy now.

User avatar
Melkor Unchained
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 4647
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Melkor Unchained » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:46 pm

I'm not sure I would say slavery was the direct cause of the war (by itself) but it was the issue that made all the other differences between the north and south irreconcilable.

But has anyone pointed out yet (especially after all this talk about Britain) that slavery began under European rule, and that the colonies were set up to depend on it? Not that I'm defending the practice, but I can't help but roll my eyes when Europeans wax judgmental on American race relations. Not saying that's happening in this thread, but I find it intensely hypocritical when Euros scold us over slavery when they were still slaughtering Africans well after the US Civil war.
Last edited by Melkor Unchained on Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"I am the Elder King: Melkor, first and mightiest of the Valar, who was before the world, and made it. The shadow of my purpose lies upon Arda, and all that is in it bends slowly and surely to my will. But upon all whom you love my thought shall weigh as a cloud of Doom, and it shall bring them down into darkness and despair."

User avatar
Lacadaemon
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5322
Founded: Aug 26, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Lacadaemon » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:47 pm

Dempublicents1 wrote:You mean an economy and way of life built on slave ownership?


-ish. Slavery was a large part of it, but the two blocs had fundamentally different economies (structurally) and wanted fundamentally different things from the federal government. That would have been the case whether there had been slavery or not.
The kind of middle-class mentality which actuates both those responsible for strategy and government has little knowledge of the new psychology and organizing ability of the totalitarian States. The forces we are fighting are governed neither by the old strategy nor follow the old tactics.

User avatar
Lunatic Goofballs
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 23565
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Lunatic Goofballs » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:48 pm

The Cat-Tribe wrote:(Before launching into my main tirade I will note that I am not planning on returning to regular posting, although frequent lurking has led me to believe these forums have improved since I last posted here.)
-snip-


:clap:

And it's nice to see you again, even if only temporarily. :)
Life's Short. Munch Tacos.

“Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!”
Hunter S. Thompson

User avatar
Yootopia
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8410
Founded: Dec 28, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Yootopia » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:49 pm

Melkor Unchained wrote:But has anyone pointed out yet (especially after all this talk about Britain) that slavery began under European rule, and that the colonies were set up to depend on it?

Not like the US couldn't have made a clean break from its past...
End the Modigarchy now.

User avatar
Lacadaemon
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5322
Founded: Aug 26, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Lacadaemon » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:50 pm

Melkor Unchained wrote:But has anyone pointed out yet (especially after all this talk about Britain) that slavery began under European rule, and that the colonies were set up to depend on it? Not that I'm defending the practice, but I can't help but roll my eyes when Europeans wax judgmental on American race relations. Not saying that's happening in this thread, but I find it intensely hypocritical when Euros scold us over slavery when they were still slaughtering Africans well after the US Civil war.


Nah. It didn't really take off until after independence. King cotton, eli whitney and all that shite.
The kind of middle-class mentality which actuates both those responsible for strategy and government has little knowledge of the new psychology and organizing ability of the totalitarian States. The forces we are fighting are governed neither by the old strategy nor follow the old tactics.

User avatar
Melkor Unchained
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 4647
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Melkor Unchained » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:50 pm

Lacadaemon wrote:
Dempublicents1 wrote:You mean an economy and way of life built on slave ownership?


-ish. Slavery was a large part of it, but the two blocs had fundamentally different economies (structurally) and wanted fundamentally different things from the federal government. That would have been the case whether there had been slavery or not.

*winces*

A better response would have been: "... as established by the British." :p
"I am the Elder King: Melkor, first and mightiest of the Valar, who was before the world, and made it. The shadow of my purpose lies upon Arda, and all that is in it bends slowly and surely to my will. But upon all whom you love my thought shall weigh as a cloud of Doom, and it shall bring them down into darkness and despair."

User avatar
Natapoc
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19864
Founded: Antiquity
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Natapoc » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:50 pm

Melkor Unchained wrote:I'm not sure I would say slavery was the direct cause of the war (by itself) but it was the issue that made all the other differences between the north and south irreconcilable.

But has anyone pointed out yet (especially after all this talk about Britain) that slavery began under European rule, and that the colonies were set up to depend on it? Not that I'm defending the practice, but I can't help but roll my eyes when Europeans wax judgmental on American race relations. Not saying that's happening in this thread, but I find it intensely hypocritical when Euros scold us over slavery when they were still slaughtering Africans well after the US Civil war.


It is not hypocritical so long as the "European" in question also scolded involved nations of europe for the same. Just as you have every right to point out the atrocities committed by the Spanish, the english, and others so also people of European nations are not hypocritical when they condemn racist actions anywhere in the world: including the united states.
Did you see a ghost?

User avatar
Melkor Unchained
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 4647
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Melkor Unchained » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:51 pm

Lacadaemon wrote:
Melkor Unchained wrote:But has anyone pointed out yet (especially after all this talk about Britain) that slavery began under European rule, and that the colonies were set up to depend on it? Not that I'm defending the practice, but I can't help but roll my eyes when Europeans wax judgmental on American race relations. Not saying that's happening in this thread, but I find it intensely hypocritical when Euros scold us over slavery when they were still slaughtering Africans well after the US Civil war.


Nah. It didn't really take off until after independence. King cotton, eli whitney and all that shite.

But it couldn't have "take[n] off" without the framework put in place by European colonists. ;)
"I am the Elder King: Melkor, first and mightiest of the Valar, who was before the world, and made it. The shadow of my purpose lies upon Arda, and all that is in it bends slowly and surely to my will. But upon all whom you love my thought shall weigh as a cloud of Doom, and it shall bring them down into darkness and despair."

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Abserdia, Benuty, Blargoblarg, Dresderstan, Eternal Lotharia, GLDF, Google Adsense [Bot], Great Algerstonia, Greater Miami Shores and La Habana Cuba, Heloin, Ism, Italios, Jack Thomas Lang, Jolthig, Kowani, Napkizemlja, Neanderthaland, New Hennig, Northwest Slobovia, Ordenstaat Burgundy, Serconas, Shrillland, Takso, The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord, Totally Not OEP, Washington Resistance Army

Advertisement

Remove ads