- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
If secession was legal then what right did the North have to keep the South in the USA?
Posted on 8/17/17 at 4:15 pm
Posted on 8/17/17 at 4:15 pm
And think before you say 'slavery' because 1) that wasn't the focus of the war when it started and 2) the North was happily enjoying the agriculture products and taxes from the South right up until the moment shots were fired.
Remember, the US Government pardoned Jefferson Davis because they were afraid he would prove in court that secession was legal.
Remember, the US Government pardoned Jefferson Davis because they were afraid he would prove in court that secession was legal.
This post was edited on 8/17/17 at 4:16 pm
34
Posted on 8/17/17 at 4:17 pm to weagle99
quote:
what right did the North have
Might makes right
Posted on 8/17/17 at 4:18 pm to weagle99
Because the South aligned itself with Europe via trade shortly after the Revolutionary war.
It didn't have the same historical allegiance as the north and couldn't be easily controlled so the North started measures to weaken the south economically out of fear the south would grow stronger and be a tool of Britain etc.
The slavery excuse to actually FIGHT the civil war is revisionist bull shite.
It didn't have the same historical allegiance as the north and couldn't be easily controlled so the North started measures to weaken the south economically out of fear the south would grow stronger and be a tool of Britain etc.
The slavery excuse to actually FIGHT the civil war is revisionist bull shite.
This post was edited on 8/17/17 at 4:20 pm
Posted on 8/17/17 at 4:20 pm to weagle99
quote:Stopped right there
If secession was legal
Posted on 8/17/17 at 4:21 pm to weagle99
quote:
what right did the North have to keep the South in the USA?
this argument wasn't settled by an ideological discussion of rights
the argument was settled with violence and power
Posted on 8/17/17 at 4:22 pm to JuiceTerry
It wasn't ILLEGAL. That's really his question.
This post was edited on 8/17/17 at 4:22 pm
Posted on 8/17/17 at 4:24 pm to weagle99
Right of Conquest.
Posted on 8/17/17 at 4:24 pm to theunknownknight
Looks like we have a brainwashed history retard downvoting easily verifiable facts.
Secession wasn't illegal. Nothing prohibited any state, legally, from leaving the union.
Secession wasn't illegal. Nothing prohibited any state, legally, from leaving the union.
Posted on 8/17/17 at 4:33 pm to weagle99
Walt will be here soon to explain it all to you in 3 million words or more.
Posted on 8/17/17 at 4:34 pm to weagle99
Has anyone on this board ever read the states' letters of secession? Not all, but some states did secede over the North freeing Southern slaves. The other states did not want the Northern states/federal government to force laws on them and seceded when the fighting started.
Posted on 8/17/17 at 4:35 pm to weagle99
Power comes from the barrel of a gun.
Mso tse tung.
Mso tse tung.
This post was edited on 8/17/17 at 4:36 pm
Posted on 8/17/17 at 4:35 pm to weagle99
Jefferson Davis refused a pardon because he knew he could beat it. They let him go on some double jeopardy bull shite to deny him his day in court.
Posted on 8/17/17 at 4:35 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:
Stopped right there
Why? Because it doesn't fit your narrow minded agenda? At the time, it was legal.
Posted on 8/17/17 at 4:38 pm to Champagne
The bottom line is look no further than the present. Some pussies in Washington, both sides, want complete control and power.
They view a segment of society as a threat to that power. So they weaken that segment via taxes and regulatory burden to keep them from attaining too much monetary infuence. They brainwash the masses with propaganda and buy votes via entitlements to increase their grip. Then try and rig the voting system with obviously slanted ID laws.
And that segment STILL has the power to vote in a threat like Trump.
Step 2: They demonize that segment and make it a moral fight with false pretenses and the useful idiots will follow.
If they win the fight, they reframe the whole series of events under that false moral narrative.
Rinse and repeat. We've been here before.
They view a segment of society as a threat to that power. So they weaken that segment via taxes and regulatory burden to keep them from attaining too much monetary infuence. They brainwash the masses with propaganda and buy votes via entitlements to increase their grip. Then try and rig the voting system with obviously slanted ID laws.
And that segment STILL has the power to vote in a threat like Trump.
Step 2: They demonize that segment and make it a moral fight with false pretenses and the useful idiots will follow.
If they win the fight, they reframe the whole series of events under that false moral narrative.
Rinse and repeat. We've been here before.
This post was edited on 8/18/17 at 7:35 am
Posted on 8/17/17 at 4:42 pm to weagle99
Lincoln took an oath to preserve the Union. The North overall did not necessarily want to go to war over slavery. They were against the expansion of slavery . The prevailing thinking was that once you went into the union there was no Constitutional mechanism for getting out. So the thinking was that if you joined the Union you were stuck....no way out.....legally. Kind of like being an old school Catholic back in the day. So when the North says , no you can't it's illegal and give it up, the Southern states decide that their only recourse, to preserve their way of life- economically, was to fight it out
Posted on 8/17/17 at 4:44 pm to KiwiHead
Except the north still had slaves when the war started and Lincoln didn't want to end slavery when it started either.
The moral argument changed once the North realized they might lose. So why were they fighting in the first place? See my posts above.
The moral argument changed once the North realized they might lose. So why were they fighting in the first place? See my posts above.
This post was edited on 8/17/17 at 4:45 pm
Posted on 8/17/17 at 4:50 pm to weagle99
might makes right
Posted on 8/17/17 at 4:55 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
The prevailing thinking was that once you went into the union there was no Constitutional mechanism for getting out
No.
Posted on 8/17/17 at 4:57 pm to KiwiHead
And by the way, slavery was AN issue. It was an economic issue with some faint moral bearings at the time. As a moral issue it definitely wasn't big enough to split the country into brutal war.
Poor white men weren't killing their own fathers and brothers because less than 2% of the population owned blacks 50 miles away.
They were killing each other because the North didn't trust the South to defend the Union agianst foreign invaders and the South viewed the North AS the invaders.
Initially it was all about money and power. Morality came in later as the bodies piled up. Like it always does.
Poor white men weren't killing their own fathers and brothers because less than 2% of the population owned blacks 50 miles away.
They were killing each other because the North didn't trust the South to defend the Union agianst foreign invaders and the South viewed the North AS the invaders.
Initially it was all about money and power. Morality came in later as the bodies piled up. Like it always does.
This post was edited on 8/17/17 at 5:01 pm
Posted on 8/17/17 at 5:05 pm to Maytheporkbewithyou
quote:
Has anyone on this board ever read the states' letters of secession? Not all, but some states did secede over the North freeing Southern slaves. The other states did not want the Northern states/federal government to force laws on them and seceded when the fighting started.
I have and I'll say this: we project our modern moral feelings of slavery onto a economic/political debate of their time. The rationale for succession wasn't "hey we WANT to be evil so let's leave". That's obviously freaking retarded. The rationale was "these Yankees are trying to subvert our economy, tax us up the arse, and impose their will over us"
So...they left.
Washington then had a serious strategic problem. They couldn't have potential allies of their European enemies at their doorstep. The very thing the North was trying to prevent actually happened. They were screwed unless...
This post was edited on 8/18/17 at 7:36 am
Page 1 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News