Sip_Tyga

Before the federal government does a nationwide ban, can we talk about their authority to do so? Banning alcohol needed an amendment, don’t they need to amend the constitution?

quote:

---

You want to make a moral claim about the South without a discussion of what their grievance in particular was.

---

I said the peace commission speaks for itself in that its goal was peace, I take your “sure” to be an agreement. So unless shown otherwise, I maintain it’s the case that the South was open and up front while the North was saying one thing and implementing another.

quote:

---

Paying isn't good enough to give up a strategic position that could control shipping in and out of Charleston.

---

That’s right to control the commerce of a foreign state. SC could do without the union, the union needed SC though.

quote:

---

And I'm saying that in geopolitics, the relationships aren't equal. We can deduce several things from the South's actions too. It doesn't necessarily lead to a situation where the South's grievances are justified.

---

I’m just not sure what you’re objecting to as far as my points here or what claim you’re making exactly. I think the South was justified, I’m not sure what you’ve presented to the contrary. Remember our exchange started when I pointed out some points you were missing regarding the Sumter battle.

quote:

---

Either you are a kid or naive as frick. Might always makes right in geopolitics. There has never been any other way in human relations. Morality either applies to all actors evenly or it goes out the window with respect to geopolitics. If you want to make moral claims, thankfully the South lost thoroughly on those grounds too.

---

I’ve read this a couple times, are you saying might makes right or not?

To keep us on track though, I don’t see where you’ve objected to the following points:

The South was negotiating for peace. (You took this at face value you said)
The North was negotiating not in good faith bc they were preparing for and provoking war as negotiations were going on. (You didn’t object to my revisions and analyses on the events of Sumter)
The South thought they would benefit out of the union and the North thought they would benefit by keeping them against their will, as you pointed out the North wanted to maintain control of the South’s commerce. (Controlling commerce in SC, praxeology of one party wanting to leave and another forcing them to stay)
This is why I maintain that the battle at Sumter was justified for the South in its defense.

quote:

---

What is the fact that the South had 'peace negotiators up north' evidence of, specifically? That they were earnestly interested in avoiding war? That their concern for the potential loss of life was so great that they were asking for concessions from a stronger party without giving anything in return?

---

I take it to speak for itself unless something tells me otherwise. The nature of the union should’ve been mutually beneficial. The fact that one party wanted to leave and the other was determined to make them stay tells you about who was getting what in return from the relationship. That’s just how relationships work, it’s praxeological.

quote:

---

You’d think someone who claims such knowledge of the Civil War would be aware of the fact Beauregard had lined Charleston with cannons to prevent a resupply of Fort Sumter.

Beauregard had batteries on Morris and Sullivan Island. He had already retaken Fort Moultrie and Castle Pinkney. He even had a floating battery in Charleston Harbor.

Resupply was impossible. The Star of the West had already been chased away. Even the Union soldiers on Fort Sumter knew they could not be resupplied from the sea.

Beauregard, Perkins, and Davis knew these facts. These are simple facts of history. Resupply was impossible, and Anderson told them he had less than a week's worth of food.

Lincoln did not manipulate the South into firing on Fort Sumter. To the contrary, they were looking for an excuse. They found their excuse.

The South started the Civil War by firing without provocation on US soldiers on US land.

---

If resupplying was impossible, why was it attempted again, despite Lincoln’s cabinet warning that it would seen as an act of war? Further Lincoln indicated that it had the desired result. And as far as the harbor being well defended, the maneuver from Moultrie to Sumter was seen for what it was, and the South still held out from military action as US Secretary of State was still ensuring the South that the forts would be abandoned. Beauregard gave multiple warnings prior to the bombardment, and no one was killed by the South.

While there’s something to be said for the ceding of Sumter to the US, I think SC and the Confederacy recognized this, hence the offer to reimburse the US for it during peace negotiations. When SC ceded the forts to the US, the US was still an agent for the state’s defense. After SC seceded that relationship obviously changed and it seems that SC and the Confederacy acted in good faith during the negotiations. Despite this, SC and the Confederacy were apparently misled and means for their subjugation were already under way when they took the property back. SC and the Confederacy respected the US’s property right until their sovereignty was threatened I would say. And I would say it’s telling which side seemed to be acting in good faith and which wasn’t.

The South fighting the civil war for slavery is at the least misleading. Where prior to the war was abolition of slavery a serious policy proposal? Slavery was talked about in the secession documents, but that was about secession, not going to war. So you could say they seceded over slavery in the Deep South, but not over a threat of abolition, but rather the expansion of slavery, which was tied up in both political power in terms of the national government, as well as northern desire to keep the west open for free whites. Perhaps it’s just meant colloquially that the South fought for slavery but given that this is an issue perpetually argued about, it should probably be stated more clearly, and thus more fairly to the South.

Legalized the use, but are hard drugs being manufactured legally? I think the idea is that it would be manufactured eventually by entities that would make it uniform and eventually in safer forms. I don’t know what would happen but it seems plausible that drug prohibition could be seen the way alcohol prohibition is in the future. Hard drugs being made by criminals doesn’t seem to be the answer.

Cultural revolution won’t end until everything has been cleansed. The South is just first.

I’d prefer tariffs for revenue to income taxes, but I’m not very interested in stacking tariffs on top of income taxes. Also have to be careful that tariffs for government revenue don’t become a means to protect sectors from foreign competition no matter what, as that’s just some Americans living at the expense of others.

You can read the Republican’s platform in 1860, you can read Lincoln before and during the war, you can read the congressional resolution for the reason for the war, you can read the originally proposed 13th amendment that passed in both houses, and you can read the emancipation proclamation. The north was not going to war to abolish slavery, they were conceding slavery to prevent disunion. Concession didn’t work so they went to war to prevent disunion. The Confederacy was trying to negotiate peace as soon as it was formed.