Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scriver]

"Relatively easy"

not like the entire economy was destroyed and entire cities burned to the ground.

And I'd like to point out that the official casus belli for the Civil War was the shelling of Fort Sumter, not secession.

The occupation didn't go as planned because of Lincoln's VP taking over.  The intent was go a few years with the south under military rule and forcefully integrate the freed slaves.  Instead southern generals and soldiers were given amnesty almost immediately, the Southern states were re-added to congress with no fuss, and southern cops were given autonomy.  Hence sharecropping, vote suppression and the KKK.

That interpretation treats the confederacy as a separate nation rather than rebels in a civil war.  The north didn't have or need a reason to start the war because they didn't start the war; the southern rebels did by being rebels.

I love the double think of a country built on states seceding from another country forbidding states from seceding from their own. "God gave us the right to rebel, but not the right to rebel against us!"

[Max™]

Yeah but england is terrible, the only good thing it ever did was McClaren.

[scriver]

I dunno, sounds pretty Scottish to me!

[Helgoland]

I love the double think of a country built on states seceding from another country forbidding states from seceding from their own. "God gave us the right to rebel, but not the right to rebel against us!"

Heh, that never occured to me before: The usual legitimation for that sort of secession is, roughly speaking popular demand - the will of 'the people'. Funny how the institutions claiming to embody that will in the case of the Confederacy were not only not elected, but were actively repressing twenty to forty percent of said 'people'.
That should pretty much put the last nail in the coffin of the states' rights argument. The folks claiming that states' rights were being infringed weren't legitimized to speak for those very same states by just about any measure there is, apart from the sort of legal positivism that makes people invoke internet rules.

[Playergamer]

"Relatively easy"

not like the entire economy was destroyed and entire cities burned to the ground.

And I'd like to point out that the official casus belli for the Civil War was the shelling of Fort Sumter, not secession.

The occupation didn't go as planned because of Lincoln's VP taking over.  The intent was go a few years with the south under military rule and forcefully integrate the freed slaves.  Instead southern generals and soldiers were given amnesty almost immediately, the Southern states were re-added to congress with no fuss, and southern cops were given autonomy.  Hence sharecropping, vote suppression and the KKK.

That interpretation treats the confederacy as a separate nation rather than rebels in a civil war.  The north didn't have or need a reason to start the war because they didn't start the war; the southern rebels did by being rebels.

I love the double think of a country built on states seceding from another country forbidding states from seceding from their own. "God gave us the right to rebel, but not the right to rebel against us!"

"You're very clever, young man," said Jefferson Davis, "but it's rebellions all the way down!"

[ChairmanPoo]

When they said "states' rights" they  meant "state's right to regard half the population as a commodity"

Surely we're not going to take that kind of apologetics seriously

[EnigmaticHat]

"Relatively easy"

not like the entire economy was destroyed and entire cities burned to the ground.

And I'd like to point out that the official casus belli for the Civil War was the shelling of Fort Sumter, not secession.

The occupation didn't go as planned because of Lincoln's VP taking over.  The intent was go a few years with the south under military rule and forcefully integrate the freed slaves.  Instead southern generals and soldiers were given amnesty almost immediately, the Southern states were re-added to congress with no fuss, and southern cops were given autonomy.  Hence sharecropping, vote suppression and the KKK.

That interpretation treats the confederacy as a separate nation rather than rebels in a civil war.  The north didn't have or need a reason to start the war because they didn't start the war; the southern rebels did by being rebels.

I love the double think of a country built on states seceding from another country forbidding states from seceding from their own. "God gave us the right to rebel, but not the right to rebel against us!"

I mean it would be, except that the founding fathers knew they were getting into a war, knew they were breaking English law, and they knew what would happen if they lost.  Their argument wasn't "we have an innate right to do this" it was "fuck King George in particular."  The stuff about having a right to take up arms was explicitly against tyranny.  By their own rhetoric, if the king had been just and given them a voice in parliament, they would have owed him loyalty as English citizens.  Now the confederates believed they were up against tyranny, don't get me wrong.  But the founding fathers would never have been stupid enough to call their rebellion "the war of English aggression."  And the north is hardly going to call their own government tyranny, especially since Lincoln hadn't really done all that much at the time of the rebellion.

To be clear, while I have a problem with the doctrine of secession, that's not my big level problem with the Confederacy.  If someone in USA history had started a rebellion for a good reason, even using a dumbass justification like secession, I would at least consider the idea that they were in the right.

*although you could argue they cared more about their own wallets then freedom for the masses, but that's a whole other digression and not one I have a strong opinion on

[smjjames]

I love the double think of a country built on states seceding from another country forbidding states from seceding from their own. "God gave us the right to rebel, but not the right to rebel against us!"

Heh, that never occured to me before: The usual legitimation for that sort of secession is, roughly speaking popular demand - the will of 'the people'. Funny how the institutions claiming to embody that will in the case of the Confederacy were not only not elected, but were actively repressing twenty to forty percent of said 'people'.
That should pretty much put the last nail in the coffin of the states' rights argument. The folks claiming that states' rights were being infringed weren't legitimized to speak for those very same states by just about any measure there is, apart from the sort of legal positivism that makes people invoke internet rules.

They didn't forbid secession, just made it really damn hard. Of course, now that things are far more interconnected among states than they were in the 1860's, the problems of movement of goods makes it even harder. Which is why actual talk of secession these days isn't taken seriously and it's become a way of chest beating.

When they said "states' rights" they  meant "state's right to regard half the population as a commodity"

Surely we're not going to take that kind of apologetics seriously

State Rights like being able to set some of their own laws and regulation (marjuana is a particularily visible one) is actually a thing, however, the term itself has become associated with the Lost Cause movement as a dog-whistle.

[ChairmanPoo]

You're not actually serious about the Confederacy being about medical marijuana are you?

The whole thing was done to preserve slavery and fairly little else

[martinuzz]

But they are a commodity. More than half of the US household lives off credit. The banks own them, and trade them between their kind as common commodity

'WTS Joe Average. Has a work slave value of 50k USD, and judging by his digital health record, is likely to produce up to 85% of that before he croaks. Can be yours now for only 10k USD!'

[smjjames]

You're not actually serious about the Confederacy being about medical marijuana are you?

The whole thing was done to preserve slavery and fairly little else

*facepalm* I don't blame you for not knowing much about internal US politics, but I'm using that as a modern example of what state rights actually are. There are two meanings of 'state rights', the actual thing in the constitution, which is why states can do marjuana legalization despite it being federally illegal, and the definition that Lost Causers want it to be.

But they are a commodity. More than half of the US household lives off credit. The banks own them, and trade them between their kind as common commodity

'WTS Joe Average. Has a work slave value of 50k USD, and judging by his digital health record, is likely to produce up to 85% of that before he croaks. Can be yours now for only 10k USD!'

You seem to be replying to an earlier discussion.

[martinuzz]

heh indeed, odd. Can't even find the post I replied to

[EnigmaticHat]

I love the double think of a country built on states seceding from another country forbidding states from seceding from their own. "God gave us the right to rebel, but not the right to rebel against us!"

the sort of legal positivism that makes people invoke internet rules.

Thank you for fucking knowing what this is*.  People do shit like saying doxxing is a breach of free speech and its like... according to who?  Do you have a right to say things in 100% anonymity in real life?  Were there any special exceptions made for the internet?  The internet is the internet because it happened that way randomly with none of the people involved directly deciding.  There is no sacred laws saying your anonymity and everything else is sacred.  And don't even get me started on people who go on 4chan and come out thinking that you can say or do anything and everyone has to assume you're being ironic, as if that's a rule that anyone follows anywhere else.

*Unless we're talking about totally different things, in which case I will retract my thank you in embarrassment

[ChairmanPoo]

You're not actually serious about the Confederacy being about medical marijuana are you?

The whole thing was done to preserve slavery and fairly little else

*facepalm* I don't blame you for not knowing much about internal US politics, but I'm using that as a modern example of what state rights actually are. 

But we are not talking about contemporary State Rights issues are we? We are talking about what the Confederacy was about

[smjjames]

You're not actually serious about the Confederacy being about medical marijuana are you?

The whole thing was done to preserve slavery and fairly little else

*facepalm* I don't blame you for not knowing much about internal US politics, but I'm using that as a modern example of what state rights actually are. 

But we are not talking about contemporary State Rights issues are we? We are talking about what the Confederacy was about

I'm trying to say theres a difference between how it's said in the Constitution and the way that the Lost Cause people want it to be. Plus the way that it's become a loaded word to mean "We want to oppress minorities and the government can't/shouldn't stop us, especially when it's coming from Republicans.