Replies

@newguy - thanks for joining the discussion and immediately bringing your level-headed opinion, (forgetting “@$$h0les” of course)

Hi phillyguy--my chief objection is not with the historical debate regarding the nature of the civil war, as interesting as it is. Rather, there is someone posting on this thread who specifically stated that he would fight for his state to secede--today--even if that state were seceding so that it could hold slaves. That is utter madness. I realize that the civil war period is incredibly complicated and that it has been grossly oversimplified far too often. But to not see the superiority of individual rights to every form of corporate rights (including "states' rights") in today's context is shameful. With the way the country is headed I am greatly encouraged when certain states (TX) talk of secession. My problem is with little adolphs running around still dreaming of some fictional glory days of states-as-sovereign-nations who would be perfectly alright putting chains around the necks of their fellow men if that meant the sovereignty of their states.

But to not see the superiority of individual rights to every form of corporate rights (including "states' rights") in today's context is shameful.

I'd say anyone who justifies rape, pillage and murder of 600,000+ in the name of "morality" is "shameful". No one is arguing for slavery, and your conflation of what people are saying with what you assume they're saying is the only thing "fictional" about this discussion. (Well, that and "putting chains around the necks of the fellow men" - as that was much more a visage of the northern slave capture, shipment and trade than slavery as it ever existed in the south - and telling southerners they "sold other human beings" - when that too was particularly an area of the north's expertise).

Most here are simply arguing the essential principle of federated republics echoed through our founders - that the central behemoth, the states and the people all must live under the strict rule of law, for better or worse, because the rule of man is ultimately always worse.. You don't do the discussion any justice by conflating the timeless principles of separated powers and self-determination with the institution of slavery (that was a national and global problem at that time).

If states want to secede from the union because some states want to control the others, they retain the right to do so as their union of "mutual benefit" has been voided. Let those who take the moral high ground let the world to see, while those who do not accept the moral, political and economic scorn of the world while their evils die a slow, natural death. (Hint, the principles hold, and no one dies that way.) But any perceived moral authority flies right out the window when you start an unnecessary war.

Instead, once we permitted centralization, it grew by it's nature, and sovereignty shrunk. Though you could shout from the rooftops if you lived in state X that state Y was evil, while handling things a better way, now we're just an alphabet soup and we're all under the behemoth's thumb. The same principles of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" you claim were violated by some states (though arguably all) with slavery, now we all violate them together tenfold with no escape hatch. Compare the 4 million slaves built up over centuries with the "convenience" slaughtering of 50 million+ infants in mere decades since Row v Wade.

There is no manumission from slavery under tyranny. I'd say be careful what you wish for, and try really hard to grasp the principles of the discussion before you burst out with emotion again.