American Politics VII: Virginia Reel

[Diahon]

*Continuing from old thread*



Because the South literally started the hostilities?

Nope, they lawfully and constitutionally seceded, the Tyrant Lincoln committed to keeping the “Union” together, by force if necessary (ignoring that if a State voluntarily chose to enter the Union, it can voluntarily choose to leave); so the Confederacy considered itself under direct threat, and took action.

While slavery was wrong, that wasn’t the only issue. The Northern states had been using their advantages in Congress to bully the Southern states via tariffs and other laws. Politically, there’s no difference between the Southern Secession, and the rebellion of the colonies against the King of England. The South no longer felt they had representation in the Federal government.

Lincoln should have let them go. They would have been a pariah nation and withered away. The costs were too great. Too many deaths, half the nation taking over one hundred years to recover, and too much power concentrated in the federal government.

bahahahahahahahahahahahaha

this is such historical revisionism, man

"tyrant lincoln"? slavery not the only issue? the south no longer represented? UNITED STATES TAKING A CENTURY TO RECOVER AFTER THE CIVIL WAR??????

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Postauthoritarian America]

*Continuing from old thread*



Because the South literally started the hostilities?

Nope, they lawfully and constitutionally seceded, the Tyrant Lincoln committed to keeping the “Union” together, by force if necessary (ignoring that if a State voluntarily chose to enter the Union, it can voluntarily choose to leave); so the Confederacy considered itself under direct threat, and took action.

While slavery was wrong, that wasn’t the only issue. The Northern states had been using their advantages in Congress to bully the Southern states via tariffs and other laws. Politically, there’s no difference between the Southern Secession, and the rebellion of the colonies against the King of England. The South no longer felt they had representation in the Federal government.

Lincoln should have let them go. They would have been a pariah nation and withered away. The costs were too great. Too many deaths, half the nation taking over one hundred years to recover, and too much power concentrated in the federal government.

Please cite the staute or Constitutional provision that allows US States to secede. (Hint: there aren't any.) The Confederacy resorted to force of arms. It lost. States can't secede. Next case.

[Alcala-Cordel]

im on the first page, death to america, long live the revolution

May the undying spirit of the working class take a stand against all who stand in our way, we have nothing to lose but our chains

Edit: damn it, I missed page 1 coming up with a dramatic way to say that

[Thermodolia]

Except the US did win both wars. Unless you are so blinded by your america hate boner.

You don't have to believe it from me, ask a LTG USA (RET) with some first-hand experience. And keep telling yourself we won in Iraq and Afghanistan, nevermind the chaos, devastation and body bags.

>Some one with first hand experience
>looks at my service record

Also I didn’t claim we won Afghanistan, you did. I said the US won both iraq wars and multiple others since 1965. Which disproves your point about how the US hasn’t won shit since.

Sure you might not agree with the wars but a victory is a victory

[Republic Of Ludwigsburg]

Again, the south fired the first shots. NOT the north. So I think it is safe to say that the South is the Aggressor, and as such, it is the war of Southern Aggression.

No, to say that the Northern Aggression is a lie, is disingenuous. The Civil war happened. The South had their reasons to secede, and the North had their reasons for destroying the Southern Confederacy by force, destroying its infrastructure, and occupying it by military force. I find it a ludicrous oversimplification to blame it totally on "a bunch of racists" or to infer that the Confederacy was nothing but racist is even more so.

Mate, what are you smoking rn? Your just distorting the argument to make the North look like it "DESTROYED THE SOUTH BY FORCE" when they really just did it for war strategy. The South wasn't the "Afghanistan" or "Iraq" of the civil war. It was more like Nazi Germany, where it rose up against a state with a big military and got defeated, with a few sympathizers who claim that the North "occupied" the south. In Nazi Germany's case seceding from the union was much like invading Poland.

[Comerciante]

It's not as though Slavery was quite literally written into several states' declaration of secession or anything. Nope.

[Merrill]

No, to say that the Northern Aggression is a lie, is disingenuous. The Civil war happened. The South had their reasons to secede, and the North had their reasons for destroying the Southern Confederacy by force, destroying its infrastructure, and occupying it by force. I find it a ludicrous oversimplification to blame it totally on "a bunch of racists" or to infere that the Confederacy was nothing but racist is even more so.

And those reasons were the right to own human beings as property.

Nope, Lincoln just wanted to keep the Southern States under the control of the federal government: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

[Thermodolia]

*Continuing from old thread*



Because the South literally started the hostilities?

Nope, they lawfully and constitutionally seceded, the Tyrant Lincoln committed to keeping the “Union” together, by force if necessary (ignoring that if a State voluntarily chose to enter the Union, it can voluntarily choose to leave); so the Confederacy considered itself under direct threat, and took action.

While slavery was wrong, that wasn’t the only issue. The Northern states had been using their advantages in Congress to bully the Southern states via tariffs and other laws. Politically, there’s no difference between the Southern Secession, and the rebellion of the colonies against the King of England. The South no longer felt they had representation in the Federal government.

Lincoln should have let them go. They would have been a pariah nation and withered away. The costs were too great. Too many deaths, half the nation taking over one hundred years to recover, and too much power concentrated in the federal government.

The constitution makes no mention about leaving the union. And as someone who claims to be a strict constitutionalist you should be against the south because the constitution doesn’t explicitly say that states can leave

[Thermodolia]

And those reasons were the right to own human beings as property.

Nope, Lincoln just wanted to keep the Southern States under the control of the federal government: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

True. But the south literally left because they feared that Lincoln would take their slaves. They mentioned it several times actually

[Comerciante]

And those reasons were the right to own human beings as property.

Nope, Lincoln just wanted to keep the Southern States under the control of the federal government: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

Ah yes, that lovely quote that revisionist like to take out of context or politely ignore the rest of.

[Diahon]

And those reasons were the right to own human beings as property.

Nope, Lincoln just wanted to keep the Southern States under the control of the federal government: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

but the south seceded and made slavery -- and even deeper than that, human inequality -- the foundation of the condeferacy

slavery lost, inequality won for a century, through the violent end of reconstruction and the establishment of jim fucking crow

i mean, take that win, because this is just laughable, asserting states had the right to secede when established law and constitutional precedent shat all over that

[Narland]

No, to say that the Northern Aggression is a lie, is disingenuous. The Civil war happened. The South had their reasons to secede, and the North had their reasons for destroying the Southern Confederacy by force, destroying its infrastructure, and occupying it by force. I find it a ludicrous oversimplification to blame it totally on "a bunch of racists" or to infere that the Confederacy was nothing but racist is even more so.

And those reasons were the right to own human beings as property.

Their first main reason was Congressional tarrifs that taxed the Southern Farmer at 45-55% percent about his profit margin while the northern farmer, and the northern manufacturer got away unscathed at less than 5% in most cases. Slavery became an issue when the North realized that the War was so unpopular (the New York Riots for instance) they had to make slavery the definitive issue. It was like a couple arguing past each other, and not listening to the other. Once the South was destroyed economically it was only a matter of time and attrition. The Slaves would be set free, and the South would be occupied by Northern conquerors. That is as simple as one can get without it becoming a meme of "the south is racist" and "the north perfect"

[Lord Dominator]

*Continuing from old thread*



Because the South literally started the hostilities?

Nope, they lawfully and constitutionally seceded, the Tyrant Lincoln committed to keeping the “Union” together, by force if necessary (ignoring that if a State voluntarily chose to enter the Union, it can voluntarily choose to leave); so the Confederacy considered itself under direct threat, and took action.

Firstly, unilateral (ie, that done without consent of the rest of the country) is unconstitutional, per the Supreme Court (revolution is technically also a possibility, but that wasn’t what they were doing). Secondly, over half the Confederate states did not join the union as such, because they were formed out of land held by the Federal government at some point.

While slavery was wrong, that wasn’t the only issue. The Northern states had been using their advantages in Congress to bully the Southern states via tariffs and other laws. Politically, there’s no difference between the Southern Secession, and the rebellion of the colonies against the King of England. The South no longer felt they had representation in the Federal government.

They did have representation, they just couldn’t handle the possibility of losing.

[Republic Of Ludwigsburg]

Again, the south fired the first shots. NOT the north. So I think it is safe to say that the South is the Aggressor, and as such, it is the war of Southern Aggression.

No, to say that the Northern Aggression is a lie, is disingenuous. The Civil war happened. The South had their reasons to secede, and the North had their reasons for destroying the Southern Confederacy by force, destroying its infrastructure, starving out its cities, and occupying it by military force. I find it a ludicrous oversimplification to blame it totally on "a bunch of racists" or to infer that the Confederacy was nothing but racist is even more so.

According to your logic, the Southern Confederacy was suppressed and brutally genocided. That does not serve as a justification for owning human beings as property. Also the North destroyed the South's infrastructure as a war tactic, not as a way to punish the South.

[Bombadil]

No, to say that the Northern Aggression is a lie, is disingenuous. The Civil war happened. The South had their reasons to secede, and the North had their reasons for destroying the Southern Confederacy by force, destroying its infrastructure, and occupying it by military force. I find it a ludicrous oversimplification to blame it totally on "a bunch of racists" or to infer that the Confederacy was nothing but racist is even more so.

Mate, what are you smoking rn? Your just distorting the argument to make the North look like it "DESTROYED THE SOUTH BY FORCE" when they really just did it for war strategy. The South wasn't the "Afghanistan" or "Iraq" of the civil war. It was more like Nazi Germany, where it rose up against a state with a big military and got defeated, with a few sympathizers who claim that the North "occupied" the south. In Nazi Germany's case seceding from the union was much like invading Poland.

Britain forced the Nazis hand by vowing to protect Poland, the Nazis had no choice but to be sucked into war..

[Thermodolia]

And those reasons were the right to own human beings as property.

Their first main reason was Congressional tarrifs that taxed the Southern Farmer at 45-55% percent about his profit margin while the northern farmer, and the northern manufacturer got away unscathed at less than 5% in most cases. Slavery became an issue when the North realized that the War was so unpopular (the New York Riots for instance) they had to make slavery the definitive issue. It was like a couple arguing past each other, and not listening to the other. Once the South was destroyed economically it was only a matter of time and attrition. The Slaves would be set free, and the South would be occupied by Northern conquerors. That is as simple as one can get without it becoming a meme of "the south is racist" and "the north perfect"

Except the south literally wrote into the declarations that slavery was the reason. Everything else was second to slavery. Hell the CSA constitution literally forbade any state from making slavery illegal

[Vassenor]

And those reasons were the right to own human beings as property.

Their first main reason was Congressional tarrifs that taxed the Southern Farmer at 45-55% percent about his profit margin while the northern farmer, and the northern manufacturer got away unscathed at less than 5% in most cases. Slavery became an issue when the North realized that the War was so unpopular (the New York Riots for instance) they had to make slavery the definitive issue. It was like a couple arguing past each other, and not listening to the other. Once the South was destroyed economically it was only a matter of time and attrition. The Slaves would be set free, and the South would be occupied by Northern conquerors. That is as simple as one can get without it becoming a meme of "the south is racist" and "the north perfect"

If the main reason was unfair taxes and tariffs why do all the declarations of secession state the main reason was the maintenance of the institution of slavery?

[Alcala-Cordel]

Again, the south fired the first shots. NOT the north. So I think it is safe to say that the South is the Aggressor, and as such, it is the war of Southern Aggression.

No, to say that the Northern Aggression is a lie, is disingenuous. The Civil war happened. The South had their reasons to secede, and the North had their reasons for destroying the Southern Confederacy by force, destroying its infrastructure, starving out its cities, and occupying it by military force. I find it a ludicrous oversimplification to blame it totally on "a bunch of racists" or to infer that the Confederacy was nothing but racist is even more so.

The primary reason for the Confederate secession and attack on the United States was by far slavery. Downplaying it does not justify what they did in the slightest.

[Merrill]

Nope, they lawfully and constitutionally seceded, the Tyrant Lincoln committed to keeping the “Union” together, by force if necessary (ignoring that if a State voluntarily chose to enter the Union, it can voluntarily choose to leave); so the Confederacy considered itself under direct threat, and took action.

While slavery was wrong, that wasn’t the only issue. The Northern states had been using their advantages in Congress to bully the Southern states via tariffs and other laws. Politically, there’s no difference between the Southern Secession, and the rebellion of the colonies against the King of England. The South no longer felt they had representation in the Federal government.

Lincoln should have let them go. They would have been a pariah nation and withered away. The costs were too great. Too many deaths, half the nation taking over one hundred years to recover, and too much power concentrated in the federal government.

Please cite the staute or Constitutional provision that allows US States to secede. (Hint: there aren't any.) The Confederacy resorted to force of arms. It lost. States can't secede. Next case.

Virginia reserved the right of secession to herself when she included the following in her ratification on 26 June 1788: “…the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will…” New York reserved the right of secession to herself when she included the following in her ratification on 26 July 1788: “…the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness…” Rhode Island reserved the right of secession to herself when she included the following in her ratification on 29 May 1790: “…every other power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by the said constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States or to the departments of government thereof, remain to the people of the several states, or their respective State governments to whom they may have granted the same…”
The States are on equal footing with one another. If Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island have the right to secede, so do all the rest.

If secession was treason, surely the Constitution would say so. It does not. If secession was treason, surely the United States government would have been delegated the authority to prevent States from leaving. No such authority was or has been delegated. As James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.” This is reflected by the Constitution itself – the powers of the federal government are positively delegated and specifically enumerated. It has no powers other than those granted by the Constitution.

[The Temple of the Computer]

And those reasons were the right to own human beings as property.

Their first main reason was Congressional tarrifs that taxed the Southern Farmer at 45-55% percent about his profit margin while the northern farmer, and the northern manufacturer got away unscathed at less than 5% in most cases. Slavery became an issue when the North realized that the War was so unpopular (the New York Riots for instance) they had to make slavery the definitive issue. It was like a couple arguing past each other, and not listening to the other. Once the South was destroyed economically it was only a matter of time and attrition. The Slaves would be set free, and the South would be occupied by Northern conquerors. That is as simple as one can get without it becoming a meme of "the south is racist" and "the north perfect"

That is an lie, because new york was the city/state that was paying the most tariffs and made the federal government a lot of money.

[Narland]

No, to say that the Northern Aggression is a lie, is disingenuous. The Civil war happened. The South had their reasons to secede, and the North had their reasons for destroying the Southern Confederacy by force, destroying its infrastructure, and occupying it by military force. I find it a ludicrous oversimplification to blame it totally on "a bunch of racists" or to infer that the Confederacy was nothing but racist is even more so.

Mate, what are you smoking rn? Your just distorting the argument to make the North look like it "DESTROYED THE SOUTH BY FORCE" when they really just did it for war strategy. The South wasn't the "Afghanistan" or "Iraq" of the civil war. It was more like Nazi Germany, where it rose up against a state with a big military and got defeated, with a few sympathizers who claim that the North "occupied" the south. In Nazi Germany's case seceding from the union was much like invading Poland.

I am responding to a statement that Northern Aggression was a lie. Northern Aggression happened. It was the military strategy of the North to occupy the South to keep them from seceding. It actually happened. The North fought against the Southern States, occupied, and re inducted them by into the Union by military might. To say that was a lie is incredibly disingenuous.

[Lord Dominator]

And those reasons were the right to own human beings as property.

Their first main reason was Congressional tarrifs that taxed the Southern Farmer at 45-55% percent about his profit margin while the northern farmer, and the northern manufacturer got away unscathed at less than 5% in most cases. Slavery became an issue when the North realized that the War was so unpopular (the New York Riots for instance) they had to make slavery the definitive issue.

“Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”
- Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens, March 21 1861

Slavery certainly became more emphasized later in the war for foreign policy reasons, but to pretend it was not in fact a driving reason from the beginning is ludicrous.

[Republic Of Ludwigsburg]

Mate, what are you smoking rn? Your just distorting the argument to make the North look like it "DESTROYED THE SOUTH BY FORCE" when they really just did it for war strategy. The South wasn't the "Afghanistan" or "Iraq" of the civil war. It was more like Nazi Germany, where it rose up against a state with a big military and got defeated, with a few sympathizers who claim that the North "occupied" the south. In Nazi Germany's case seceding from the union was much like invading Poland.

Britain forced the Nazis hand by vowing to protect Poland, the Nazis had no choice but to be sucked into war..

Do you know why the Nazis invaded Poland.....? Also do you know the atrocities commited there.....? Also remember Auschwitz.....? The Nazis had only bad intentions. Don't make Britain look like an aggressor just because they wanted the people of Poland to not die.

[Thermodolia]

Their first main reason was Congressional tarrifs that taxed the Southern Farmer at 45-55% percent about his profit margin while the northern farmer, and the northern manufacturer got away unscathed at less than 5% in most cases. Slavery became an issue when the North realized that the War was so unpopular (the New York Riots for instance) they had to make slavery the definitive issue. It was like a couple arguing past each other, and not listening to the other. Once the South was destroyed economically it was only a matter of time and attrition. The Slaves would be set free, and the South would be occupied by Northern conquerors. That is as simple as one can get without it becoming a meme of "the south is racist" and "the north perfect"

If the main reason was unfair taxes and tariffs why do all the declarations of secession state the main reason was the maintenance of the institution of slavery?

Silly Vass facts don’t matter only crazy cooked up bullshit made after the fact to make the South seem like victims

[Picairn]

Nope, they lawfully and constitutionally seceded,

Lol where is the Secession Clause in the Constitution?

the Tyrant Lincoln committed to keeping the “Union” together, by force if necessary

"Wah wah wah the tyrant Lincoln didn't allow me to own slaves!!!"

(ignoring that if a State voluntarily chose to enter the Union, it can voluntarily choose to leave);

Where is the Secession Clause in the Constitution? It doesn't exist.

so the Confederacy considered itself under direct threat, and took action.

The Southern states seceded before Lincoln was even inaugurated. They were outraged because they saw Lincoln as a abolitionist.

While slavery was wrong, that wasn’t the only issue. The Northern states had been using their advantages in Congress to bully the Southern states via tariffs and other laws.

This is not true. In 1860 the state of New York singlehandedly paid 63% of Federal tariffs' revenue.

https://youtu.be/yylf6xUSQos
Point at minute 2:45.

Politically, there’s no difference between the Southern Secession, and the rebellion of the colonies against the King of England. The South no longer felt they had representation in the Federal government.

They actually had enough votes to block the Morrill Tariff from becoming law in March 1861, but their secession deprived them from representation and allowed it to pass. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Tariff

Lincoln should have let them go. They would have been a pariah nation and withered away.

Hard to let them go when they attacked federal forts.

The costs were too great. Too many deaths, half the nation taking over one hundred years to recover, and too much power concentrated in the federal government.

The US abolished slavery and became a Great Power by the time of McKinley and T. Roosevelt, so perhaps the costs were not too taxing on the US as a whole.