Posted on 11/03/2015 6:52:26 AM PST by don-o
Your reply is indeed lengthy, but it manages to miss the entire point.
I never said the United States fought to end slavery. That was not their goal.
On the other hand, the Confederacy most assuredly *was* fighting to preserve slavery. That was their first and foremost reason from breaking away from the Union.
Those are the very simple facts. No amount of historical revisionism, or lengthy digressions, can change them. If the United States was in a morally gray area, and it was, then the Confederacy was pure evil.
Our pro-Confederates here love to confuse the issues and misdirected the argument — did the North fight to free slaves, did the South fight against Big Gubmint?
Clarification begins if we consider a good analogy — why did the US declare war on Japan & Germany in December 1941?
Yes, in answer we might refer to a long list of geo-political reasons, from protecting free trade, to defending Democracy, or even stopping the Holocaust.
And sure, all of those reasons played a role, but in fact, America did not, could not, would not enter WWII until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and Hitler formally declared war on the United States.
Likewise in 1861, you can refer to a long list of reasons for Civil War, but in fact, the US did not, could not, would not go to war until the Confederacy first attacked Union troops in Fort Sumter and then formally declared war on the United States, while threatening Union border states like Missouri.
Whether it be or not, they had as much right to leave as did the original 13 slave owning states had a right to leave British rule.
You and other's constant focus on their reasons for leaving deliberately ignore the fact of their RIGHT to do so.
On the other hand, the Confederacy most assuredly *was* fighting to preserve slavery. That was their first and foremost reason from breaking away from the Union.
Please. Were the original 13 slave owning colonies pure evil? Just stop it. Stop trying to apply your modern sensibilities to the opinions and moralities of past eras. No, they were not "pure evil." They were a product of their times and members of a country that regarded slavery as legal and proper when the nation was founded, even going so far as to build a specific protection for it into the US Constitution.
With such "pure evil" hyperbole you run out of range to describe history. For example, the Nazis, who murdered 6 million people and killed around 20 million in their war, what were they? Were they as bad as the South?
How about the Soviets? 30 million dead in their purges. Were they as bad as the South? How about the Chinese? 80 million murdered under Mao. What were they? How about Islam? 100 Million people killed (so far) by Islam.
By portraying those people who forced others to work for them as "pure evil" you run out of scope to define what was actually pure evil in human history.
And what of the five slave states that supported the Union. Were they "pure evil" too?
Give it a rest. Your argument that "they were bad people" does not address the larger point that "bad people" still had inherent rights under the law at that time, and the most prominent of which was the right to leave.
Not for you it doesn't. You are comparing the murder of 3,000 people, the destruction of billions of dollars worth of military assets, and the subsequent threat to American shipping interests and trading partners throughout the Pacific rim, as somehow being the moral equivalent of killing no one and blowing up some rocks.
Nobody got hurt when the Confederates took back their land. The property, which belonged to their state, did not constitute any sort of threat to the Union, nor did it represent any substantial value or interest. They had fully intended to pay for it, but the Union government insisted on being recalcitrant and unreasonable.
That being said, they would have been better off if they had let the baby keep his toy.
Incorrect. I believe the right to leave, as asserted in the Declaration of Independence, is an inherent right regardless of geography. Indeed, in the early days of the Republic, many Northern states mumbled about exercising this right themselves.
...can leave at any time, and for any reason (or no reason at all) irregardless of consequence, and no one else is entitled to even object, much less lift a finger.
Freedom of Association also means freedom of Disassociation. What would you tell someone if they told you that you aren't allowed to leave an association?
I bet you would tell them to go f*** themselves.
“Likewise in 1861, you can refer to a long list of reasons for Civil War, but in fact, the US did not, could not, would not go to war until the Confederacy first attacked Union troops in Fort Sumter”
Which is probably why they kept the troops at Sumter, in order to bait the South into war. As long as they refused to evacuate, the war was inevitable.
Sumter belonged to the federal government and Anderson and his troops had every right to be there.
It’s not a guess, it’s a self-evident observation. No nation in history has allowed another nation to station troops in their borders without permission, if they had the ability to resist. So under those circumstances, war was as inevitable as the sun rising in the east.
Are you saying that the British did not have a right to oppose the thirteen colony's leaving like they did?
that’s simply not true. Read some history.
He hasn’t a clue what he is saying.
And the reason for going to war with Germany?
Nobody got hurt when the Confederates took back their land. The property, which belonged to their state, did not constitute any sort of threat to the Union, nor did it represent any substantial value or interest.
Except that it wasn't their land or their property.
They had fully intended to pay for it, but the Union government insisted on being recalcitrant and unreasonable.
If it was their land and their property, as you claim, then why would they offer to pay for it? Assuming that they did. Which they didn't.
That being said, they would have been better off if they had let the baby keep his toy.
But they didn't. They chose to start a war over the toy. Kind of foolish of them, don't you think?
Cite one contrary example, if you can...
England in Gibraltar. The U.S. and Guantanamo Bay. The U.S. and European powers in China up until World War II. Portugal and Goa up until 1961.
+1
The United States.
Check out the Northwest Indian War (1785 - 1795)
All of those examples violate the final clause of my sentence: “... if they had the ability to resist.”
You’ll need to be specific, what country stationed troops in which other country without permission?
The British maintained forts in several areas claimed by the United States. Like I said - read some history.
It's like we've never covered this topic before. It's like you haven't learned the foundational underpinnings of my argument.
The British operated under the Premise that the King Ruled by divine right, and that opposition to rule by the King was the same thing as opposition to God himself.
The Colonies became aware of a different philosophy which was known as "Natural Law", and it was the culmination of nearly a century worth of philosophical contemplation by various natural law philosophers, among them Locke, Rutherford, Wolfe, Vattel, etc.
This body of natural law argued that people have inherent rights that do not come from the King, but come from God and Nature.
Following the British philosophy of "Divine Right", the British most certainly believed they had the moral right to oppose secession by the colonies.
The Colonies, following natural law, certainly believed they had a right to leave British rule. The whole conflict was a struggle to see which philosophical foundation would win.
"Natural Law" won. The Colonies established a government based on the natural law principle that people had a right to separate themselves from a government which did not suit their interests.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
In 1776, the governing paradigm shifted from the British "Divine Right of Kings" to the US "Principles of Natural Law."
In 1861, Lincoln eschewed the "Natural Law" principles, and reverted back to a sort of "Divine Right" to preserve the Union.
The confederates were true to the principle which founded the United States, Lincoln rebelled against this principle and took the same position as had the British King.
If you are going to argue with me, the least you can do is achieve a firm understanding of the argument I am making.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.