End the lies: The Confederacy was about slavery

[Yootopia]

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.

[Jello Biafra]

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.

[Dempublicents1]

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?

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.

[Panzerjaeger]

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.

[Fartsniffage]

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.

[My 3rd Floor Flat]

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.

[North Suran]

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.

[Natapoc]

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.

[Natapoc]

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.

[Fartsniffage]

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?

[Jello Biafra]

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

[2nd PLT]

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.

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.

[Natapoc]

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.

[Yootopia]

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.

[Fartsniffage]

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?

[My 3rd Floor Flat]

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.

[Yootopia]

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"

[Melkor Unchained]

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.

[Lacadaemon]

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.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

(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-

And it's nice to see you again, even if only temporarily.

[Yootopia]

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...

[Lacadaemon]

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.

[Melkor Unchained]

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."

[Natapoc]

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.

[Melkor Unchained]

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.