Posted on 06/26/2015 6:14:39 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Interesting take.....
I would have to say that this post is the most in-depth and reasoned examination of the causes and results of the civil war that I have read in years.
It is for opinions like this that I pull up Freerepublic on a regular basis.
Kudos to the author.
It was an unmitigated disaster for all sides, especially for the future of the Republic.
And our next Civil War is going to make that one pale in comparison! Since we never learn from History and currently have a POS CIC who is teeing one up, we will be destined to repeat it...
Well written and thought out.
How many states would secede if it was allowed? That would reign in Fedzilla.
That fact that this sort of reasoned analysis is so rare is depressing, and dangerous.
Lee surrendered his army but the Southern people never intellectually surrendered. We knew we always had the right to secede. We were just unable to physically fight off the invading force of the North.
CWII is on the way and for varying and different reasons but the end result will be different this time. I blame the Fedzilla that the Left has promoted and the right has allowed to morph into a tyrannical ungovernable monster. It has to come down one way or the other.
The cultural war that is going on in this country today is at level of vitriol not seen even before the Civil War. It cannot continue and I see no way to reunite everyone.
It’s in depth, and perhaps reasoned - but I think he is guilty of some fundamental flaws.
His “right to invade” analogy has a lot of problems. The Nazi analogy on right to invade is simply flawed.
He also assumes it was 100% pro slave versus 100% non slave. It was not. There were slaves who fought for the South and 3 states who fought for the union were slave owning states.
It’s outside the box, and I’ll give him credit. But he’s wrong on about half of what he said.
How can the north have a right to invade when they were guilty in part for the same act of slavery? (rhetorical)
Good stuff.
Well thought-out and well-presented.
Because the north didn’t go to war over the issue of slavery. The north went to war because the south went to war against them.
Slavery is not dead - just waiting for the tyrannical nazis of the left to demolish the rule of law.
One way to win an argument is to ignore inconvenient facts. That’s what this writer has done (and some readers fell for).
Had secession been averted (and, thus, no Confederate flag ever existed), slavery would have continued under the U.S. Constitution. Using the writer’s “logic” then, the U.S. would have had no moral authority to govern and would have been susceptible to foreign invasion - as long as the invaders were anti-slavery.
And, since, Britain outlawed slavery a little more than a generation before the U.S., this writer’s “moral” argument would require him to comdemn the American revolutionaries and wish for a failed attempt at independence. According to him, the DoI and the Constitution had no “moral” authority.
Bottom line: self government includes a large element of moral authority, but it doesn’t require a 1.000 batting average. That’s beyond the capacity of man - and would be even if everybody agreed on the criteria.
Good article - if you’re a 7th Grader.
The firing on Fort Sumter was supposedly incidental to slavery.
What was the moral right to invade the west?
If the Union is a compact between the soverign states then shouldn't breaking that compact at least require consultations with the other states if not their approval as well?
The Republic emerged from the rebellion stronger and more solid than ever. It's been the presidents since - Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Nixon, et.al. - who went and threw all that away.
We know better than the left.
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.