Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Cause of Civil War
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 83 of 193 (584455)
10-01-2010 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Blue Jay
10-01-2010 2:42 PM


Re: Frustration?
Because he seemed rather frustrated in his last post. I would be too if I logged on to find 12 posts containing evidence that I had to go through and refute. Dr Adequate wins a lot of debates by attrition (i.e. frustration), because nobody can keep up with him.
That's so close to being a tribute.
Yeah, I out-facted him. It wasn't difficult.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Blue Jay, posted 10-01-2010 2:42 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 85 of 193 (584474)
10-02-2010 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Blue Jay
10-01-2010 4:56 PM


Re: It's all relative
Your arguments seem to be leading to the conclusion that the war and its outcome were the result of the practical failures of the Confederacy in matters of politics, and their unwillingness to concede these practical failures.
It's certainly a much less glamorous view of history than the other views from this thread, which deal wih the ideological failures, but I'm sure there's merit to your position as well.
But it seems obvious that their ideological failures had nothing to do with it.
The South did not lose just by virtue of being in the wrong, because that is not the way that the Universe works. "I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a green bay tree." (Ps. 37:35).
No, they lost because the North kicked their butts. Their practical failure was in fact a practical failure, not a moral failure.
My only real complaint is that your argument tends to favor a "might makes right" principle ...
Well, it did in this case. But that's not a principle, it's an observation. In this particular case, might made right. Hooray! This observation does not lead one to believe that it will always do so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Blue Jay, posted 10-01-2010 4:56 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by anglagard, posted 10-02-2010 11:50 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 95 of 193 (584609)
10-02-2010 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Blue Jay
10-02-2010 12:45 PM


Lincoln
What can we say about the Union perspective during that time period? Was Lincoln's interest in the conflict originally about slavery? Or was it originally about something else, and only came to be about slavery as a political move later on?
Lincoln was certainly opposed to slavery; but at the time of his election he had no intention of abolishing it outright (which in any case was a job for the legislature and not the executive).
But the south (rightly) interpreted his election as a big "screw you" from the North to the South. He had been elected because he opposed slavery, by Northerners who opposed slavery, without him even bothering to go on the ballot in the Southern states. His election was a signal that the North was not prepared to compromise, and that eventually, if the Southern states remained in the Union, the North would abolish their "peculiar institution". It wasn't so much a question of what Lincoln was going to do, it was that his election was the writing on the wall.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Blue Jay, posted 10-02-2010 12:45 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by xongsmith, posted 10-03-2010 12:14 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 98 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-03-2010 9:23 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 100 by NoNukes, posted 10-03-2010 3:51 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 116 of 193 (587641)
10-19-2010 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Theodoric
10-19-2010 11:45 AM


Re: George Washington, secession?
That it is indispensable to the happiness of the individual States, that there should be lodged somewhere, a Supreme Power to regulate and govern the general concerns of the Confederated Republic [...] That whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or contribute to violate or lessen the Sovereign Authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the Liberty and Independency of America, and the Authors of them treated accordingly.
And so on.
I shall still maintain that every State has the right to secede, whether or not this action may be prudent. It was not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Theodoric, posted 10-19-2010 11:45 AM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by NoNukes, posted 10-19-2010 9:44 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 120 of 193 (588571)
10-26-2010 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by NoNukes
10-19-2010 9:44 PM


Re: George Washington, secession?
Could you elaborate a bit? What is the basis for such a right? What would be the appropriate process under which a state could sever the relationship between one of its citizens and the federal government against that citizen's will?
Oh, sorry, I missed this when you asked it.
If a state legislature is elected that votes to do so, of course. My theory being that the United States is in fact a union of states.
Now your question raises a couple of awkward questions of its own. If we take your implicit premises to be true, then:
(1) By what right could the states attach themselves to a federal government against the will of one of its citizens? If there was one citizen of (for example) Virginia, who had said "But I don't want any federal government! Virginia alone and independent for ever!" should that have kept the whole state out of the union?
(2) If it is a question for individuals, then by what right is (for example) Mr. Joe Bloggs kept in the union now if he personally wants to secede? You ask how his state can sever the connection against his will, but if that is a good question, then surely it is an equally good question as to how his state can maintain this connection against his will.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by NoNukes, posted 10-19-2010 9:44 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by NoNukes, posted 10-27-2010 4:50 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 121 of 193 (588574)
10-26-2010 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Artemis Entreri
09-29-2010 1:30 PM


Re: thanks
Since A.E. is back, I'll respond to this:
And the simple fact that the emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in states that left the union, shows that it was merely a political and strategic move to destablize the enemy.
Yes. And no.
It's a subtle point, but let's look into it.
As I pointed out a few posts back, Lincoln, in his role as President, could not have freed a single slave. That was a matter for Congress.
The legal justification for the Emancipation Proclamation was that the slaves in the Confederate States formed part of the Confederate war machine. Therefore Lincoln could proclaim them free in his role as Commander-in-Chief.
Now this excuse was tenuous enough as it is --- but he certainly could not have applied it to slaveholding states that had remained in the Union, such as Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri, because they weren't the enemy.
So instead of saying: "The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in states that left the Union, as a political and strategic move to destabilize the enemy" it would be more accurate to say: "The Emancipation Proclamation could only free slaves in states that left the Union, and only because it was a political and strategic move to destabilize the enemy".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Artemis Entreri, posted 09-29-2010 1:30 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Artemis Entreri, posted 10-27-2010 12:19 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 125 of 193 (588645)
10-27-2010 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Artemis Entreri
10-27-2010 12:19 AM


Re: thanks
and probably would have become the enemy, if all slaves were included (well probably not in DE). I find the whole thing to be purely political. Lincoln had to wait till 1863 for a real victory to give this proclamation to begin with, had this been given in 1861 he would have looked more the fool, and possibly lost Maryland, placing Washington D.C. on the wrong side of the line.
If you are accusing Lincoln of being intelligent, this may well be the case.
Either way the emancipation proclamation was not really to end slavery, it was just rubbing in the win at Ghettysburg, and flip flopping on a campaign promise.
... which for some reason you do not quote.
And come on now ..."flip-flopping"? Nice rhetoric and all, but do you not think that the outbreak of a civil war between his campaign and the Emancipation Proclamation might have altered things somewhat?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Artemis Entreri, posted 10-27-2010 12:19 AM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Artemis Entreri, posted 10-27-2010 1:03 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 127 of 193 (588647)
10-27-2010 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Artemis Entreri
10-27-2010 12:26 AM


Re: WOW
I haven't got to it yet but all you have done is use quotes from subbie and Dr Adequate, so I guess you can't even follow your own advice.
my name calling is in response to name calling from others. you start the thread off with assertion that i would not defend my self and then every single post say that i do not, while only using ideas from Dr Adequate.
But what you are saying about Theodoric is not remotely true, is it?
It's fairly easy to check out. See that thing at the top of the thread where it says Theodoric Posts Only? Well it's simple enough to click on that and read all his posts, it didn't take me long. And if you can't find it, you can just click on the link that I just supplied.
So it's fairly easy to find out that you're not telling the truth.
Is this thread about the Cause of the Civil War or how Robert E. Lee was not fighting for slavery?
Hint: look at the title of the thread.
... so I will cover Lee and see where the goal posts get moved to next.
ROTFL.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Artemis Entreri, posted 10-27-2010 12:26 AM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Artemis Entreri, posted 10-27-2010 8:45 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 128 of 193 (588648)
10-27-2010 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Artemis Entreri
10-27-2010 1:03 AM


Re: thanks
speaking of rhetoric, it really wasn't a civil war, it was a war against the power of the federal government, over the issue of self determination by some of the states.
I get what you are asking but you use the same tricky rhetoric yourself.
"Rhetoric"? It's just what people call it. They call it the Civil War.
And if you would bother to look at my posts, you will see that I support the right to secession and repeatedly refer to "the CSA". If calling it the "Civil War" is "tricky rhetoric", then I am trickily using rhetoric to undermine my own explicitly stated position.
But maybe I am not engaged in some intricate devious double-bluff of this nature. Maybe I just call it the Civil War because that's what it's called.
Sheesh.
The emancipation proclamation was probably ready for the 1st Battle of Manasses, Lincoln had to wait two years for a real victory.
Again, I concede that Lincoln was quite bright ...
Lincoln could have handled the war peacfully, but he choose another route.
... but perhaps not quite bright enough to handle a war peacefully.
That might even be beyond my powers.
1865, the year the constitution died.
Yeah, you've said that before. Maybe one day you'll tell us what you mean by it.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Artemis Entreri, posted 10-27-2010 1:03 AM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 142 of 193 (588865)
10-28-2010 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by NoNukes
10-27-2010 4:50 AM


Re: Goose v. Gander?
I understand your position. I disagree with it primarily because I believe the union under the Constitution was not a dissoluble union of states.
Why not?
The people gained a number of important rights under the constitution, and I think the process of severing those rights is not well served by allowing a simple majority vote of the legislature or even direct vote by the people to eliminate those rights and protections.
But this is a mere argument from consequences, and does not affect what the law is.
I think that people's rights were not well served by Prohibition, and are not now well served by the current prohibition of marijuana, but that is not an argument that this was/is not the law.
For example if the VA legislature decided today that the 14th amendment (or 13th or 15th) was incompatible with VA values, I don't believe the state legislature has any right to simply refuse to recognize that right regardless of how the public or the legislature votes. Secession in my view is the ultimate revocation of minority rights.
It is true that a state independent of the federal government could do bad things. But it is also true that the federal government could do bad things and impose them on unwilling member states. And indeed this has happened.
But this still has nothing to do with the legallity of such things.
A state might be said to have an extra-legal right to revolt or rebel against the union, but in that case, we get to judge the state's moral position. I believe that the seceding states utterly fail that examination.
Oh, quite.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by NoNukes, posted 10-27-2010 4:50 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by NoNukes, posted 10-28-2010 7:44 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 146 of 193 (588883)
10-28-2010 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by NoNukes
10-28-2010 7:44 PM


Re: Legitimacy of secession?
Post war, we have a SC decision that session is illegal without the consent of the other states.
I was not aware of that. Perhaps you could fill in this lacuna in my knowledge.
Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by NoNukes, posted 10-28-2010 7:44 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by NoNukes, posted 10-29-2010 12:06 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024