2nd Amendment Question

[beowulf 1]

I don't think the Northern states liked blacks enough to go to war just to abolish slavery. Blacks weren't treated much better in the northern states then they were in the southern states. I am not trying to say slavery wasn't an issue or that it didn't happen like the crazies saying the holocaust didn't happen. I just don't think it played as big of a role as you think it did.

[StreetScooby 5]

+1

We are all engines of karma

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I'd be fucking rich.

Who's he?

[regulator 0]

http://www.collegehumor.com/picture/219232/fucking-rich-people

[lawrocket 3]

Andy is attempting to put some sense into this. There is no single issue that brought about the Civil War. There were a BUNCH of issues that brought it about. Slavery is the one, however, that is a fundamentally simple concept to grasp and did indeed play a big role in the war. Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas and North Carolina were slave states that hadn’t seceded with the original 7, though they later seceded after Lincoln called for their volunteer armies (and prompting Wes Virginia to secede from Virginia to join the Union). How many people actually know that Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland remained with the Union DESPITE being slave states?

Slavery was an important issue. But Lincoln also knew that he couldn’t just end slavery or he’d risk losing Kentucky as a Union state so he didn’t issue his Emancipation Proclamation until 1863. And he was slick enough to issue the Emancipation Proclamation as commander-in-chief, meaning that the Emancipation Proclamation ONLY applied to states in rebellion and did not apply legally to Mizzou, Kentucky, Delaware or Maryland.

And internationally, it was important because the British did not view slavery well and thus wouldn’t buy what southern cotton could get past Union blockades. Europe just wouldn’t help the Confederates.

Slavery was THE important issue. Slavery was not economically good for the free states (slavery provided cheap labor). And many considered it morally repugnant. It galvanized support for the Union worldwide.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[beowulf 1]

I don't think Lincoln's main goal was to end slavery. I don't think he cared that much about it. I think it was motivated much more my money then slavery. The loss of the southern states would have meant a big loss in tax revenue and he wanted to keep the union together at all costs was a factor. I think they used the slavery issue as a political tool.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I don't think Lincoln's main goal was to end slavery. I don't think he cared that much about it. I think it was motivated much more my money then slavery. The loss of the southern states would have meant a big loss in tax revenue and he wanted to keep the union together at all costs was a factor. I think they used the slavery issue as a political tool.

You're putting the cart before the horse. The war was triggered by the Southern states' secession; Lincoln reacted, ultimately militarily, to the secession. So it really needs to be analyzed in that chronology (see above).

You're also impliedly suggesting that Lincoln's agenda must be chosen from mainly 2 motivators: economics, or slavery. But remember, Lincoln was also a lawyer; and I can tell you that many lawyers, whether by predisposition, or by training, or by career experience (he did a fair amount of criminal defense work, not just corporate work) tend to feel quite passionate about matters of legal and Constitutional principle. It may very well be that Lincoln truly felt that allowing secession not only violated the Constitution that bound the states, but would amount to the death knell of the nation; for if secession were to be permitted once, it would occur over and over again until - instead of the United States growing into a united powerhouse by the leaps and bounds occurring in the 19th Century, it would instead fracture into dozens of weak Balkan-type states, ultimately being re-subjugated by England and/or the powerful European states.

[GeorgiaDon 362]

Quote

for if secession were to be permitted once, it would occur over and over again until - instead of the United States growing into a united powerhouse by the leaps and bounds occurring in the 19th Century, it would instead fracture into dozens of weak Balkan-type states, ultimately being re-subjugated by England and/or the powerful European states.

Or Canada! Just imagine the United States of Canada. Manifest destiny in reverse,as it were.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[beowulf 1]

Secession is allowed in the constitution. The constitution supports a coalition of independent states and a weak federal government. What we have now with this massive Federal Government isn't what the authors of the Constitution intended to happen. Just like fiat currency was not what the authors wanted. I think they were right on both accounts.

The states seceded for a bunch of reasons. I think the biggest reason was due to financial repression by the Northern states.

I don't really see any way to say what we currently have would be better then what might have been if the states were allowed to secede. We don't know what that route would have been. You are just guessing as to what might have been.

I think Lincoln's biggest motivator was probably economic. He certainly didn't care that much about the constitution or the legality of secession. He did a number of things that were later ruled unconstitutional.

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

Slavery was THE important issue. Slavery was not economically good for the free states (slavery provided cheap labor). And many considered it morally repugnant. It galvanized support for the Union worldwide.

Now you are getting somewhere. You think that the north would have led the industrial revolution if slavery continued to exist in the south?

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Secession is allowed in the constitution.

Unilateral secession (which is what occurred immediately prior to the Civil War) most certainly is not; see Texas v. White, US Supreme Court, 1868. Most legal analysts doubt that secession by mutual agreement is permissible, either, although that is less firmly settled.

[beowulf 1]

Up to the Civil war it was commonly believed that the United States was a voluntary union of states. States joined the union on their own accord and believed they could leave the union when ever they wished. Then Lincoln enforced a non voluntary union. I think the Supreme Court was wrong and is often wrong. Just look at the ruling on Obamacare.

Either way I don't see how the Civil war could possibly be justified in any way shape or form. It was not worth the loss of lives just to keep the union together. Lincoln was by far the worst president ever.

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

Either way I don't see how the Civil war could possibly be justified in any way shape or form. It was not worth the loss of lives just to keep the union together. Lincoln was by far the worst president ever.

If the civil war was not justifiable in your mind, then how would you justify any other war before or after?

[beowulf 1]

What makes you think I have any justification for any war?

[ManagingPrime 0]

I was not assuming that you did. Just wanted to see if there was some special carve our for the civil war.

EDIT TO ADD: When history is a little..ummm...opaque regarding motivations I tend to 'follow the money'. So, I can see why the civil war, like many before and after, would be justifiable to many at the time.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Lincoln was by far the worst president ever.

I get it: old times there are not forgotten...

Anyhow, were it not for Lincoln, you'd be living in Texaco now. You can trust your car to the man who wears the star....

[beowulf 1]

I was born and raised in Illinois.

Although I don't have a problem with Mexico that you seem to have. My Dad is from Mexico.

[toolbox 0]

Lincoln was a bigot, and I believe he actually said something to the effect, that freed slaves should leave the US and go to south america,where he said they might be better received.
The civil war was about economics,power, and control, just like most wars are.

[Andy9o8 2]

Not Mexico, Texaco.

You know, http://ih2.redbubble.net/image.6683426.6540/lp,375x360,b,l,VGV4YWNv.jpg

Anyhow, were it not for Lincoln, you'd be living in Indiana now.

[Andy9o8 2]

OK, try this on for size. If Lincoln hadn't preserved the Union, the South would have had their pariah apartheid agrarian nation all blissfully to themselves, free to cling to their guns, bibles, bitterness and inbreeding, and the rest of the country would have been nice, like Canada, but with better weather.

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

Either way I don't see how the Civil war could possibly be justified in any way shape or form. It was not worth the loss of lives just to keep the union together.

Just to keep the Union together?

You appear to have sidestepped the entire discussion.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

OK, try this on for size. If Lincoln hadn't preserved the Union, the South would have had their pariah apartheid agrarian nation all blissfully to themselves, free to cling to their guns, bibles, bitterness and inbreeding, and the rest of the country would have been nice, like Canada, but with better weather.

LMAO

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Andy9o8 2]

Oh, by the way, a fairly easy search reveals that, despite his academic credentials and publications, Tom DiLorenzo, who you cite as a source, is a white supremacist, neo-Conservative, pro-secessionist fascist pig. About as extreme a modern-day pro-Confederate partisan as one can get.

[billvon 2,991]

> You think that the north would have led the industrial revolution if slavery continued
> to exist in the south?

They already were; that was one of the big problems. The industrial revolution allowed the North to prosper without slavery, thus allowing such a wide divide to develop.

[ManagingPrime 0]

Agreed, to a point.

I don't presume that the south was full of simple minded bumkins. Supply and demand. I doubt large plantation owns were in the business because it allowed for a life of sitting on the front porch drinking iced tea. As i understand it, the addopted the cotton gin real quick. When the benifits of industrialisation were fully realized, if they were not already, the south had the means to build factories, obtain raw materials, transport goods, etc. I tend tend to view it as competing ideas on how to best utilize human capital.

There are all types of slaves. Physical slavery went out for favor for a reason. Wage slavery is better, especially in a republic such as our own... it only makes serse that these two competing ideas would lead to conflict.

Edit to add: typing on phone is pita. Please forgive typos.