re: Question for any Civil War buffs (1850s)

quote:

---

But when there are many smaller governments, spread out, and ideally somewhat homogenous in nature, this should allow for the optimum amount of harmony.

---

Federalism.

But we can't have that because the holier than thou Progressives are miserable in their own lives and have to be activists in someone else's business.

Ex:

California passes laws to protect MAP (pedos)
Floridians: that's some sick people over there. I'll just stay here in this state. (If they even think about Ca at all)

Florida passes bill protecting children from Groomers
Californians: We must send money to Fl activist groups to go fight this heinous act of oppression!

Northern Aggression

quote:

---

But when there are many smaller governments, spread out, and ideally somewhat homogenous in nature, this should allow for the optimum amount of harmony.

---

Utter nonsense. The only way that this could even potentially occur is in a structure similar to the US right now. Again, resources in any landmass are not evenly distributed. This fact by itself creates geopolitical realities that no amount of world-building can compensate. The fact of the matter is that shared history, language, culture, has never been a strong enough reason to truly dissuade war, because war is part of the diplomatic exercise.

quote:

---

There will if course still be conflict, but with power decentralized, it allows for better systems of governments and cultures to compete, trade, interact with eachother without having to live side by side or under the rule of cultures, religions, governments they don't adhere to.

---

You are living in some fairy tale world man. Every government wants to centralize. That is the pattern of governance in the modern era. You can imagine a perfect sort of fiction where there is 'harmony' but human relations will never reach that state of grace.

Nations are either subject to rules they design and apply to others, or are subject to the rules of stronger nations. That's the way of the world. Might makes right.

Well, there was that whole war for political power in the slave versus free states thing

Sometimes I think about what they will write about this period in our history and it starts to make me question every historical account ever written.

If you are truly interested in learning about what led up to the political climate that ushered in the civil war I recommend looking into the following in the order listed below.

1.the 3/5th compromise
2.The Nullification Crisis under Jackson
3.The Missouri Compromise
4.The Kansas-Nebraska Act

The pot had been simmering for decades prior to it boiling over in 1861.

If no Ft Sumter, would there have been something else to kick things off?

quote:

---

If no Ft Sumter, would there have been something else to kick things off?

---

It was going to inevitably be Fort Sumter because Fort Sumter was more pf a northern tax weigh station than a Fort ... run entirely by yankees who would row their boats to Charleston daily and rub it in the faces of the locals. My wife and I, both from long time South Carolina families, both have family journals handed-down to us explicitly detailing the nature and purpose of the yankee troops whp had been strategically station on Fort Sumter and their intolerable behavior for the two years leading-up-to the shelling.

The yankees held the fort for two days ... Charlestonians held it for four years yet it is remains a yankee shrine to this day which still sticks in the craws of most old South Carolinian families.

Fort Sumter was predestined to be where the first shots were fired. Although, most younger people are unaware that the Articles of Succession were actually signed in Columbia ... that church still stands. (But that's another very famous story about how it escaped Sherman's wicked and evil burning of Columbia.)

quote:

---

Good thing the people in the Eastern Bloc didn't listen to people like you in the late 80s/ early 90s.


Again, this makes no sense. Good Christ you are retarded.

---

Bless your little heart. Someone disagrees with you and you feel the need to throw out insults?

You keep droning on about the desire of governments to centralize so any idea of a split in the country is futile. Yet the point remains that the Eastern Bloc of the USSR seceded from Russia and have not centralized since.

Just because a nation or state has a capital doesn't mean that that is an example of centralizing government. There never was an intention for the Fed Gov to have this seemingly unquestionable power. It is no more powerful than the States themselves. However, people have been brainwashed to believe that DC is the governing body over the States and that's not true.

If a group of states were to leave they would likely form some level of mutual aid/ resources between them. Kind of like how the federal government was intended when the Constitution was ratified.

quote:

---

You keep droning on about the desire of governments to centralize so any idea of a split in the country is futile. Yet the point remains that the Eastern Bloc of the USSR seceded from Russia and have not centralized since.

---

No, you are misunderstanding. They devolved from the USSR and then immediately began centralizing themselves. That centralization was required for NATO and EU membership, which nearly all of them received. You just don't understand what centralization means.

quote:

---

Just because a nation or state has a capital doesn't mean that that is an example of centralizing government.

---

What? Is this what you think centralization means?

quote:

---

There never was an intention for the Fed Gov to have this seemingly unquestionable power.

---

But the way humans express power supersedes any well-meaning intention. Humans, when running states, have repeatedly shown they want to aggregate power at the expense of other states, whom they see as rivals. The solutions of this particular form of governance aren't the only solutions to smooth away real or potential geopolitical fault lines. It has been more or less a form adopted in the modern era for two reasons: firstly, technology has allowed for it and secondly, it's so far been the most robust method of dealing with the massive population increase in the overall human population. There might be a potential solution in some other form of governance, but from a macro perspective, states, depending on their population levels, have various analogous structures for centralizing despite commitment, at least on paper, to different ideologies.

quote:

---

If a group of states were to leave they would likely form some level of mutual aid/ resources between them.

---

I'm telling you what the response would be from the Fed Gov. It would be a response no different from any government in the world when dealing with a breakaway state. I'm not worried about intention according to a document, I'm telling you that the consistent feature of how humans express power will always supersede even the most well-designed institutional structure.