Ignoring the issue of slavery, who would you have wanted to win the civil war?

[Inverse Icarus]

ignoring slavery, the North.

i'm not sure if what i want or what i know, most likely a mixture.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


How are you defining General?

Over a third of the South held slaves, and in the Deep South it was half.

Regardless, over 90% of Southerners owed their livelihoods and economic prosperity to the institution of slavery.

Bullshit. Get your facts right for a change, Boris.

[MrFun]

Slowwhand, he is probably counting even the poorer Southernern families who owned one to five slaves on a smaller farm.

Not just the wealthy plantation owners, but all classes of slave owners. Right Boris??

[SlowwHand]

Even if he meant that, he's wrong.
To the vast majority of The South, it was State's Rights; which meant much more than slavery.
It meant what many Northerners back to this day.
Still, my answer remains The North.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SlowwHand


Bullshit. Get your facts right for a change, Boris.

*ahem*

"Almost one-third of all Southern families owned slaves. In Mississippi and South Carolina it approached one half. The total number of slave owners was 385,000 (including, in Louisiana, some free Negroes). As for the number of slaves owned by each master, 88% held fewer than twenty, and nearly 50% held fewer than five.

For comparison's sake, let it be noted that in the 1950's, only 2% of American families owned corporation stocks equal in value to the 1860 value of a single slave. Thus, slave ownership was much more widespread in the South than corporate investment was in 1950's America.

On a typical plantation (more than 20 slaves) the capital value of the slaves was greater than the capital value of the land and implements." Source: http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/stat.html

"Census data can be appealed to in order to determine the extent of slave ownership in each of the states that allowed it in 1860. The figures given here are the percentage of slave-owning families as a fraction of total free households in the state. The data was taken from a census archive site at the University of Virginia.

Mississippi: 49%
Louisiana: 29%
Kentucky: 23%
South Carolina: 46%
Texas: 28%
Arkansas: 20%
Georgia: 37%
North Carolina: 28%
Missouri: 13%
Alabama: 35%
Virginia: 26%
Maryland: 12%
Florida: 34%
Tennessee: 25%
Delaware: 3%

In the Lower South (SC, GA, AL, MS, LA, TX, FL -- those states that seceded first), about 36.7% of the white families owned slaves. In the Middle South (VA, NC, TN, AR -- those states that seceded only after Fort Sumter was fired on) the percentage is around 25.3%, and the total for the two combined regions -- which is what most folks think of as the Confederacy -- is 30.8%. In the Border States (DE, MD, KY, MO -- those slave states that did not secede) the percentage of slave-ownership was 15.9%, and the total throughout the slave states was almost exactly 26%."

As a note, Southerners claimed the North was trying to UNDERESTIMATE the number of slave-holders in the South. Their aim was to demonstrate how vital slavery was to the Southern economy:

"It will thus appear that the slaveholders of the South, so far from constituting, numerically, an insignificant portion of its people, as has been malignantly alleged, make up an aggregate greater in relative proportion than the holders of any other species of property whatever, in any part of the world; and that of no other property can it be said, with equal truthfulness, that it is an interest of the whole community." (from James D.B. DeBow, DeBow's Review - January 1861, pp. 67-77)

This is first-hand documentary evidence taken from the census of 1860.

I will happily accept your apology any time for calling me a liar without knowing what you were talking about. I know you're a big man and will undoubtedly do so.

[Shi Huangdi]

The North. Tampering with history that mcuh would likely cause some of our ancestor to not meet, meaning we all would not exist.

[MrFun]

States' rights was nothing but a facade.

Reread the posts of mine and Boris --- Southern politicians screamed and howled about states rights when it was convenient for them.
Then when they wanted the federal government to take strong-arm action to protect slavery, Southern politicians demanded a stronger federal government in that aspect.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MrFun
Slowwhand, he is probably counting even the poorer Southernern families who owned one to five slaves on a smaller farm.

Not just the wealthy plantation owners, but all classes of slave owners. Right Boris??

I see no logical reason to differentiate between classes of slave holders. Even a person who held 1 slave is a slave holder.

[MrFun]

exactly, Boris

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Even if he meant that, he's wrong.
To the vast majority of The South, it was State's Rights;

And slavery, and protecting slavery was by far the most cited cause of the war by Southerners. It's in the secession documents, it was what they spoke about most in the secession legislatures, it was all over the editorial pages of the Southern newspapers.

And let's not forget the "Cornerstone" speech, eh?

[MrFun]

Let's give Slowwhand some time to read these flurry of posts from both of us -- don't want to overwhelm the poor guy.

[Aeson]

If slavery wasn't part of the issue then I would have to say the south. I don't think the federal government should have the right to forcibly keep states from leaving the union.

If slavery wasn't part of the issue though, then the south might not have wanted to leave in the first place.

[Boris Godunov]

Hey, I just want my apology!

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Aeson
If slavery wasn't part of the issue then I would have to say the south. I don't think the federal government should have the right to forcibly keep states from leaving the union.

If slavery wasn't part of the issue though, then the south might not have wanted to leave in the first place.

The federal government did not violate the Constitution, thus, the South had no reason to secede other than their own, extreme reason -- to preserve slavery.

[Aeson]

And I was postulating based on the 'leave slavery out of it' part of the original question.

Even if the Constitution isn't violated though, States should still have their right to withdraw from the Union if the populace wishes it. The Constitution was drawn up long ago, and ratified before anyone living here in the US was born. It isn't a sacred document that could never be wrong.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Aeson
And I was postulating based on the 'leave slavery out of it' part of the original question.

Even if the Constitution isn't violated though, States should still have their right to withdraw from the Union if the populace wishes it. The Constitution was drawn up long ago, and ratified before anyone living here in the US was born. It isn't a sacred document that could never be wrong.

Since the states can only enter the Union by the vote of congress, IMO the implication is that is the only way they can leave it. It would be a disaster for national stability if states had the ability to leave the union on whatever whim. That's no way to run a nation, and the powers given to congress to suppress legislatures in sedition support that view.

Whether or not the COTUS is sacred or not is irrelevant--it's the law, and therefore must be adhered to. If you don't like it, you work to change it, hence the ability to ammend. And the SCOTUS and other courts ensure it is a living document, not a static writ.

[Aeson]

I'm not talking about legally leaving the Union. It is possible for the Constitution to be used 'legally' in a way that would give the citizens of the US the moral right (IMO) to either revolt (national populace) or seceed (state populace).

How about a hypothetical situation: (extremely unlikely, but within the realm of possibility)

An amendment is passed which states that homosexuals aren't allowed citizenship. This amendment recieves the 75% needed and becomes 'constitutional'.

One or more of the more liberal states with a high homosexual population decides to seceed based on this new amendment. Their act would be unlawful, but would it be wrong for them to do so? Would a war by the federal government against these states be right or wrong? Can constitutional laws be wrong?

[MrFun]

Aeson, even in your example of this liberal state, that state would be in the wrong to secede from the United States.


And one more thing, Aeson -- no sane leaders of any government would provide for a means of legal secession. The only way it could be legal, was that type that was specified in the Declaration of Independence.

And the Declaration of Independence remains as part of our Organic Laws.

[Aeson]

Wrong in a legal sense, but morally? The Revolutionary War was an illegal act, but one which most people in the US would feel as morally justified.

[MrFun]

You thought I would change my stance on this issue out of mere convenience because you put homosexuality/liberal state example. Well, nice try, but that state would be in the wrong in the legal sense and moral sense.

As for the American Revolution -- the Declaration of Independence was a legal document that listed the various grievances that the Americans had against Great Britain.
Great Britain refused repeatedly to try to seriously undo these grievances.
Revolt was the last step to take, and we gladly took it.

[Aeson]

Yes I did use it because it seemed you might see my point more clearly. My thinking was that if you didn't agree with that, you wouldn't agree with any other hypothetical situations.

So you can see no possible reason from a moral standpoint that secession would ever be justified?

[KrazyHorse]

The South. Divide and conquer...

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Aeson
Yes I did use it because it seemed you might see my point more clearly. My thinking was that if you didn't agree with that, you wouldn't agree with any other hypothetical situations.

So you can see no possible reason from a moral standpoint that secession would ever be justified?

As I keep reiterating the same question that you keep asking, there is only one legal and moral reason -- the one set down by the Declaration of Independence.

So, no -- there are no other reasons for any state to secede when their sovreignty of their state government is not threatened.



And KH -- you round up those Canada Geese, and KEEP THEM AWAY FROM US!!

[Boris Godunov]

As for the American Revolution -- the Declaration of Independence was a legal document that listed the various grievances that the Americans had against Great Britain.
Great Britain refused repeatedly to try to seriously undo these grievances.
Revolt was the last step to take, and we gladly took it.

Uh...well...

A majority of American colonists did not support the Revolution. Don't forget how badly Torries were treated by the rebels. Most colonists felt there was still a lot of room for reconcilliation.

Remember that the men who became our Founding Fathers were radicals, and many of the grievances listed in the DoI were ones that had been manufactured by those fanatics (not that the situations weren't true, but that the radicals had deliberately provoked and exacerbated them). Certainly Britain had every right to feel the revolution was unjust, as they had just spend a ton of money and the lives of thousands of British soldiers defending the American colonists during the French and Indian War. The thought the colonists were being profoundly ungrateful, as they demanded the Crown protect them but refused to pay for such protection.

I don't think the American Revolution was really about all the ideals claimed in the DoI. There was a lot of self-aggrandizing fanaticism involved.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by MrFun
As I keep reiterating the same question that you keep asking, there is only one legal and moral reason -- the one set down by the Declaration of Independence.

Fair enough. I didn't want to assume so I asked.

So, no -- there are no other reasons for any state to secede when their sovreignty of their state government is not threatened.

And who should be the judge of what constitutes a valid threat?

[MrFun]

**********BORI'S QUOTE
Uh...well...

A majority of American colonists did not support the Revolution. Don't forget how badly Torries were treated by the rebels. Most colonists felt there was still a lot of room for reconcilliation.

Remember that the men who became our Founding Fathers were radicals, and many of the grievances listed in the DoI were ones that had been manufactured by those fanatics (not that the situations weren't true, but that the radicals had deliberately provoked and exacerbated them). Certainly Britain had every right to feel the revolution was unjust, as they had just spend a ton of money and the lives of thousands of British soldiers defending the American colonists during the French and Indian War. The thought the colonists were being profoundly ungrateful, as they demanded the Crown protect them but refused to pay for such protection.

I don't think the American Revolution was really about all the ideals claimed in the DoI. There was a lot of self-aggrandizing fanaticism involved.
***********END OF BORI'S QUOTE

I see both sides of the historical issue, Boris, and after what I have learned, I have seen the American Revolution as justified.
I suppose we can agree to disagree on this aspect.

As for the Tories -- I'm well aware of how they were tarred and feathered, had their property destroyed or stolen, and were imprisoned.
Look at the Loyalist Governor Thomas Hutchinson -- he said something like this: "They call me a brainless Tory, but tell me, which is better --- to be ruled by one tyrant 3,000 miles away, or to be ruled by 3,000 tyrants about a mile away?"

Originally posted by Aeson

Fair enough. I didn't want to assume so I asked.

And who should be the judge of what constitutes a valid threat?

WHO should judge what is legitimate separation??
Those who are subjected to repeated governmental violations and when their grievances are repeatedly neglected, or deliberately ignored.

[Aeson]

So in my hypothetical example, couldn't homosexuals (and whatever states supported their rights) fall into that category eventually?

How long should a populace need to allow government violations to continue before their action against it becomes justified?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Aeson
So in my hypothetical example, couldn't homosexuals (and whatever states supported their rights) fall into that category eventually?

How long should a populace need to allow government violations to continue before their action against it becomes justified?

Riiiiiiiiiiiight we homosexuals have military power that you would not believe, so that if we did revolt to form our own little state in San Franciso, we would NEVER be taken back by the might of government's forces.


It is simply infeasible for any minority group in the United States to rise up successfully, and create a separate state from the United States -- right or wrong.



But IS it right or wrong, you asked.
Homosexuals have the right to vote -- even when their sexual orientation is made to be known, they cannot be denied the right to vote.

Homosexuals have the right to life --- even when bigots bash in a homosexual's head, they would be promptly taken to the appropriate court, and be tried for murder.

Homosexuals have the right to property --- nowhere has the government backed up any attempt to deny a homosexual man/woman his/her property when their sexual orientation is known.

But there are other rights that we are struggling for --
**custody of adopted, or biological children;
**equal priveleges/benefits in the workplaces;
**consistent consideration for gay students' safety in high schools and colleges;
**repeal of sodomy laws, or at the very least, no longer defining homosexual sex acts as sodomy;
**a demand to minimize police neglect/brutality towards homosexuals who are victims of crime (to reaffirm government's protection of everyone's right to life/property) and a couple of other issues.



Now, our basic rights are protected --- the question is, as society slowly changes to becoming more accepting of homosexuals and bisexuals, and as dialogue becomes more open and frequent about sexual orientation, are we right to revolt??

I would say no, because society, IMO, is already on the path to change, in spite of areas of struggle, and some points of falling backwards. We are now at the point though, where we will overcome these obstacles sooner or later.

Aeson -- congratulations --- you managed to bring up a thread-jack topic like homosexuality in a thread about the Civil War.

Aeson -- if you want to continue your analogy (flawed??), then you might want to start a new thread before Cal decides to kill both of us.

For instance -- your thread title could be something like this:
"When do minority groups (not state governments) have right to revolt within a nation?"

[Aeson]

I was just using discrimination against a minority group as an example of why a state might possibly secede. No need to continue the discussion with any specific group, though it might make an interesting topic (no one reads my threads though ).

The main point was still if there were any circumstance when a state was morally justified in secession. I think we've agreed that there are, just for different reasons. You with what is covered in the DoI, me with just about any reason a state could come up with that was supported by the populace.

I agree that if peaceful/lawful options exist they should be used first to try and end oppression/disagreement. Failing in that, secession or revolution, depending on the scope of the resistance.

Getting back to the civil war, I feel the people of the south had a right to secede (but not the right to continue slavery). I don't know if they would have if slavery hadn't been an issue. If there had been another issue deemed worthy of secession by the South, I think they would have been justified in doing so.

I look at the Civil War in much the same light as the War for Independance. I don't agree with the South's motivation, but ignoring that motivation (as dictated by the topic of this thread) meant they were just fighting for their rights to govern themselves as they saw fit.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Aeson
You with what is covered in the DoI, me with just about any reason a state could come up with that was supported by the populace.

So in other words, I used a primary source to back up my opinion, and you have not.

Originally posted by Aeson
I agree that if peaceful/lawful options exist they should be used first to try and end oppression/disagreement. Failing in that, secession or revolution, depending on the scope of the resistance.

Getting back to the civil war, I feel the people of the south had a right to secede (but not the right to continue slavery). I don't know if they would have if slavery hadn't been an issue. If there had been another issue deemed worthy of secession by the South, I think they would have been justified in doing so.

I look at the Civil War in much the same light as the War for Independance. I don't agree with the South's motivation, but ignoring that motivation (as dictated by the topic of this thread) meant they were just fighting for their rights to govern themselves as they saw fit.

The Southern states already had the right to govern themselves -- any powers that were and are, not explicitly given to the federal government, were and are, left to the states.
To this extent, the state governments could govern themselves within the confines of the legal document called the U.S. Constitution.