Confederacy not as bad?

[JBeukema]

You're backpeddling and moving the goal posts because your challenge showed you wrong

'Federation' entails a federated system with power going from the top-down. Law from the central gov't overrides local laws unless a system is put in place to limit its power. Federal law overrides any and all local laws in areas where the fed is granted authjority

A confederacy is less centralized and the central authority has no real power- like the UN with its resolutions

 

[JBeukema]

America is a federated system which borrowed certain concepts from the confederate ideals when imposing restrictions on federal authority- read up on the Great Compromise

 

[Evangelical]

America is a federated system which borrowed certain concepts from the confederate ideals when imposing restrictions on federal authority- read up on the Great Compromise

This is my point, you're using high school grade education to make an argument and it's confusing you.

A Federacy (federate system) or a Confederacy (confederated system) are in fact the same thing.

What made the Articles of Confederation and the United States (the United States was called such under the Articles as well, but that's besides the point) different, was not the titles bestowed upon it, that never changed. It was the fact that within the Confederacy (whether under the Articles or the Constitution) the method of Union had changed from a loose alliance in the Articles to a more defined compromise between state and federal governments.

If anything, what changed was the Confederacy went from being a "Union of Republics" to becoming a "Republic unifying Republics". The prior Congress didn't really constitute a Government as much as it did an advisement body and representation of unanimous or nearly unanimous agendas of the various Republics it represented.

 

[Evangelical]

You're backpeddling and moving the goal posts because your challenge showed you wrong

'Federation' entails a federated system with power going from the top-down. Law from the central gov't overrides local laws unless a system is put in place to limit its power. Federal law overrides any and all local laws in areas where the fed is granted authjority

A confederacy is less centralized and the central authority has no real power- like the UN with its resolutions

Here you're already wrong.

"Top-down" power is called Unitarianism and is the system in use in Britain.

The US is a "bottom-up" power base, exemplified by the fact there are over 70,000 autonomous governments in the US representing the People who control them.

The UN does not even meet the definition of a Confederacy because it has no alliance system combining all the participating states into a Confederacy.

NATO is a Confederacy.

But so is the current United States.

So was THE Confederacy.

So was the Union before that.

So was the Articles of Confederation.

All of them are Confederacies. You need to expand your vocabulary to better discuss the differences between them.

 

[noakes 2024]

The Declaration of Independence states, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". This to secure the "unalienable Rights" which were "endowed [upon us] by [our] Creator".

The argument in this post seems to be that a limited Federal Government is more in line with what the Founding Fathers' envisioned for our Country. That is achieved, largely by allowing the individual states and local governments and individuals to have more control.

I think the principle inferred in the original post is correct. People are so caught up in the semantics of the argument using the 'Confederacy' and the 'Union' that they don't want to recognize the principle. It is always best to solve problems or issues at the lowest level possible. One of the reasons America is so great, is our system allows for that to happen. We have local, state, and federal governing bodies. The problem in the current trend (I think this is what the thread is pointing out) is the Federal Government is expanding its power to encompass areas that should be left to the lower governing bodies or the individual person. With a vast expansion of power, the Federal Government transforms from deriving powers from our consent to seizing power and imposing its will upon those who are governed. You see it is a fundamental role reversal. The system that was initially established to serve the people and protect their rights, becomes so large and all encompassing that it requires the people to serve it through a restriction of rights. In theory a governing body should not be allow to do something that I personally am not entitled to do through virtue of my unalienable rights. This is b/c the government gets its power from me and I cannot give it power that I do not have. I do not have the power or the right to take money or gain from my neighbors for my support or to advance my industry. Therefore it is an abuse of power for me to have a governing body do it on my behalf (ie. farmers' subsidies, bailouts, federal government takeovers of private businesses, etc).

 

[editec]

I've been seriously thinking about the civil war and the circumstances that led to the confederacy breaking the Union. I grew up as thinking South bad - North good, but my mind is changing. Where are States Right anymore, now i know how they feel. Yea Slavery was wrong and I'm more than glad it was abolished, but as for states rights, who was really right and who was really in the wrong.

Tell me your opinion.

The southern states has a legitmate beef when it came to TARIFFS.

Since theirs were by NATURE an agricultural economy, tariffs simply cost them money when they bought stuff from Europe.

But as the floundering fathers set up the FEDS with the power to control international trade, and since those same floundering fathers wanted to ENCOURAGE the growth of industrialism, and IMPOSED TARIFFS, (hell the whole Federal government was paid for from tariffs!) one can CERTAINLY understand the Southerners anger about having to pay duties on imports.

But the real problem was slavery.

The Southern economy, and MOST of it capital was in the form of slaves.

ANYTHING that threatened slavery was a threat to the whole Southern economy.

EVen limiting slavery to the existing southern states depressed the value of those slaves (hence the borrowing power of slavers, too)

The war between the states was still another example of a CLASS WAR, folks.

In this case the CLASSES were the dominate agricultures MASTERS of the South V the growing industrial MASTERS of the North.

It's about ECONOMICS, folks...it's ALWAYS about economics.

Brush aside all the legalistic BS about states rights, all the moral blather about slavery, all the social heritage values nonsense, and what you find when you get to the root of the problem is opposing forces fighting for the only thing that they really worship... MAMMON.

BOTH sides, folks..both sides were fighting over economic CONTROL.

 

[007]

OK, well, I don't have the book, and I can't see where it disputes it. So, we're right back to square one. Show me. I want to know the truth.

You still have yet to provide a source for your quote. You (A) don't know what the burden of proof is, (B) Assume it's true because you want it to be, and therefore have no claim to reason, or (C) Are a liar and know it's a false attribution

This old trick is as dumb as dirt. If you want to claim Lincoln didn't say that, then prove he didn't say it, simple as that. Calling me a liar when I've lied about nothing isn't going to do anything but acquire yourself an enemy here that won't forget it.

Now get to work or shut the fuck up. Adults are having a conversation.

 

[GHook93]

I've been seriously thinking about the civil war and the circumstances that led to the confederacy breaking the Union. I grew up as thinking South bad - North good, but my mind is changing. Where are States Right anymore, now i know how they feel. Yea Slavery was wrong and I'm more than glad it was abolished, but as for states rights, who was really right and who was really in the wrong.

Tell me your opinion.

Yea I agree, I got a ride home from a black cab driver and I had to pay the asshole. He should have been doing it for free and if he did a bad job then I should have had the right to wipe him! Then when I got home he should have painted my house!

Yep I heard all the arguments that the Northern factories were like white slavery, but they still paid them and gave them the freedom to leave! State rights, are you fucking kidding me? A weak excuse at best. The 10th amendment in theory comes into play if there is nothing in the constitution prohibiting it. Yet the original due process clause of the 5th amendment, the state can't deny life, liberty or property without due process of the law. I think liberty is a more than justification to deny a State the right to slavery!

What about the five slave states that remained in the Union during the Civil War? Clearly it wasn't fought to end slavery since that would have meant that those five states would have had to fight the Union as well.

As has already been proven, the Civil War was fought to force the Confederate states back into the Union.

Preserving the UNION was the cause of the war, but the split of the Union was because of Slavery! Its clear as day!

 

[007]

The north did not stand behind the Emancipation Proclamation, however. For one, the Underground Railroad and abolitionists in general were a minority even in the north.

"Plenty of soldiers believed that the proclamation had changed the purpose of the war. They professed to feel betrayed. They were willing to risk their lives for the Union, they said, but not for black freedom." - James McPherson, prominent Lincoln Cultist

Many Union soldiers deserted the army, and enlistment numbers plummeted after the Emancipation Proclamation. In July of 1863 there were riots in New York where white men began attacking any black people unlucky enough to cross their path, and burning buildings. They were protesting the conscription laws that only applied to white men, and the Emancipation Proclamation.

Here are a few quotes from northern soldiers.

"If emancipation is to be the policy of this war... I do not care how quickly the country goes to rot."

"If anyone thinks that this army is fighting to free the Negro... they are terribly mistaken."

"I don't want to fire another shot for the Negroes and I wish that all the abolitionists were in Hell... I do not fight or want to fight for Lincoln's Negro proclamation one day longer."

Interesting... but the north and south fought regardless, and whether or not the north wanted to fight for slaves, they did. Just as well as the south did, to keep them. Slavery was the main reason for the war.

Had the south won, I doubt little would be different today. Makes me wonder if another Civil War would really do us any good? Would another 150 years after a second Civil War really be any different than had there not been one?

Well I'm glad you seem to be receptive to the fact that the north didn't fight over slavery, whether or not you 100% agree with it or not. However, let me also point out that there were 5 slave states that remained in the Union, and I doubt very seriously that they fought to end slavery.

As to whether the south had won, it's hard to say what might be different. Would they have remained their own nation or would they have found that separation wasn't in their best interests? I'm not sure why we'd have a Civil War today, so I'm not sure why you're pondering the idea.

Well, like I said, I've read quite a bit about Civil War battles and even visited battle grounds, but have a rather average knowledge of the intricacies of the why's of the war. Thanks for the conversation on that.

And I bring up the possibility of another one because there's murmuring of one. Things are bad. We have a President with zero experience at anything other than community organizing. He and his liberal henchmen are spending money at an astronomical rate and passing massive bills that grow the government into a behemoth and they don't read the bills before they vote on them. Also it's now become evident that our grand children are going to be so far in debt that they'll never, ever be able to pay it back. They'll be taxed into oblivion. In other words, draconian actions may be needed to correct the problem, as in a revolution, or Civil War.

 

[JBeukema]

This old trick is as dumb as dirt. If you want to claim Lincoln didn't say that, then prove he didn't say it, simple as that. Calling me a liar when I've lied about nothing isn't going to do anything but acquire yourself an enemy here that won't forget it.

Now get to work or shut the fuck up. Adults are having a conversation.

'I am a terrorist. I remember when I first met Osama bin Laden- we mad passionate love all night and swore to eachother we would destroy the infidels. Nothing angers me more than Americans and their freedom, especially when I'm making love to a camel.'
-Pale Rider
-George Bush
-Barrack Obama
-Hillary Clinton


Prove that none of them said it.

He who argues the affirmative must prove the affirmative to be true. that you refuse to observe the burden of proof and defend your claims when you were challenged by another user implies that you were well aware that the information (quote) you cited was incorrect and used it anyway in a dishonest attempt to lend credence to your claims. That makes you a liar. You made the claim that Lincoln said it. Either cite verifiable and reliable source or recant

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

anti-fedealists were limp-wristed weaklings. No Confederacy could possibly stand. Only a republic had the strength to survive

The thing of it is, is that the United States is a confederacy.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yea I agree, I got a ride home from a black cab driver and I had to pay the asshole. He should have been doing it for free and if he did a bad job then I should have had the right to wipe him! Then when I got home he should have painted my house!

Yep I heard all the arguments that the Northern factories were like white slavery, but they still paid them and gave them the freedom to leave! State rights, are you fucking kidding me? A weak excuse at best. The 10th amendment in theory comes into play if there is nothing in the constitution prohibiting it. Yet the original due process clause of the 5th amendment, the state can't deny life, liberty or property without due process of the law. I think liberty is a more than justification to deny a State the right to slavery!

What about the five slave states that remained in the Union during the Civil War? Clearly it wasn't fought to end slavery since that would have meant that those five states would have had to fight the Union as well.

As has already been proven, the Civil War was fought to force the Confederate states back into the Union.

Preserving the UNION was the cause of the war, but the split of the Union was because of Slavery! Its clear as day!

Clear as a cloudy day, perhaps. Yes, slavery was certainly a part of their reason for leaving the Union, but you can't ignore the role that tariffs played either.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Interesting... but the north and south fought regardless, and whether or not the north wanted to fight for slaves, they did. Just as well as the south did, to keep them. Slavery was the main reason for the war.

Had the south won, I doubt little would be different today. Makes me wonder if another Civil War would really do us any good? Would another 150 years after a second Civil War really be any different than had there not been one?

Well I'm glad you seem to be receptive to the fact that the north didn't fight over slavery, whether or not you 100% agree with it or not. However, let me also point out that there were 5 slave states that remained in the Union, and I doubt very seriously that they fought to end slavery.

As to whether the south had won, it's hard to say what might be different. Would they have remained their own nation or would they have found that separation wasn't in their best interests? I'm not sure why we'd have a Civil War today, so I'm not sure why you're pondering the idea.

Well, like I said, I've read quite a bit about Civil War battles and even visited battle grounds, but have a rather average knowledge of the intricacies of the why's of the war. Thanks for the conversation on that.

And I bring up the possibility of another one because there's murmuring of one. Things are bad. We have a President with zero experience at anything other than community organizing. He and his liberal henchmen are spending money at an astronomical rate and passing massive bills that grow the government into a behemoth and they don't read the bills before they vote on them. Also it's now become evident that our grand children are going to be so far in debt that they'll never, ever be able to pay it back. They'll be taxed into oblivion. In other words, draconian actions may be needed to correct the problem, as in a revolution, or Civil War.

I see no benefit to secession or a Civil War in this day and age. I mean, is it there really a point to trading one massive government for another? There aren't enough Thomas Jefferson's around that believe in a truly limited government these days.

 

[cunclusion]

What is so wonderful about state's rights?

States are a more localized form of government and, in most cases, well catered to the citizens who live within the state. Those citizens are able to build the laws to suit their way of life, and such ways of life may not apply to even their neighboring states. In a country with as many differing opinions as the USA, it's impossible to come up with a set of laws that satisfy everyone. That's why the states were given the right to govern their people to begin with, but the federal laws are beginning to overshadow states' rights.

The issue with states rights is that most states do the same job as the federal government just on a smaller level. They neglect part of the population, mismanage money atleast that is what they are doing in South Carolina (you have property, sales, luxury(car) and income) and they still cant keep money correct this is a Republican run state by the way, depend on outside income from the federal government. So are states really that much better than the federal government because things would be alot different if states ran things and not the federal government (Brown vs Board of Education).

 

[editec]

Both North and South detested the Negro, just manifested itself differently. In John Jakes novel the North and South, he eloquently stated this in the book. "In the south it didn't matter how close a black man got so long as he didn't get to high. In the north it didn't matter how high a black man rose, so long as he didn't get too close".

Not much has really changed, has it?

This is one of the better threads this place has spawned, folks.

Kudos to those of you who've contributed to it.

As to things Abe Lincoln said?

Abe said a lot of things, some of them overtly racist.

He didn't end up like he started out, folks.

As to what caused the war?

Seems like all of you have at least a piece of the puzzle.

Put them ALL together and you're going to see the whole picture.

 

[GHook93]

What about the five slave states that remained in the Union during the Civil War? Clearly it wasn't fought to end slavery since that would have meant that those five states would have had to fight the Union as well.

As has already been proven, the Civil War was fought to force the Confederate states back into the Union.

Preserving the UNION was the cause of the war, but the split of the Union was because of Slavery! Its clear as day!

Clear as a cloudy day, perhaps. Yes, slavery was certainly a part of their reason for leaving the Union, but you can't ignore the role that tariffs played either.

In every war there are dozens of underlining causes, but the preservation of the union was the main cause of the Civil War and the main cause of the succession was slavery.

You do know that there was an attempt back during the formation of the country after the revolutionary war to end slavery. The abolutionist movement was alive and well as far back as 1750. HOWEVER, the country just went through a civil war and was in its infancy. It was not ready for an internal conflict, so it settled on a compromise. That compromise was the Northwest Ordinance!

For one to even begin to argue that Fed's abolishing of slavery infringed on the 10th amendment, first does not understand the 10th amendment and 2nd doesn't understand the 5th amendment.

For one to argue that slavery was not a leading cause of the war, doesn't understand the effect the Dred Scott Case had on history or how prevalent the abolutionary movement was in the North (not saying the North didn't have their prejuidices against the Blacks)!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Preserving the UNION was the cause of the war, but the split of the Union was because of Slavery! Its clear as day!

Clear as a cloudy day, perhaps. Yes, slavery was certainly a part of their reason for leaving the Union, but you can't ignore the role that tariffs played either.

In every war there are dozens of underlining causes, but the preservation of the union was the main cause of the Civil War and the main cause of the succession was slavery.

You do know that there was an attempt back during the formation of the country after the revolutionary war to end slavery. The abolutionist movement was alive and well as far back as 1750. HOWEVER, the country just went through a civil war and was in its infancy. It was not ready for an internal conflict, so it settled on a compromise. That compromise was the Northwest Ordinance!

For one to even begin to argue that Fed's abolishing of slavery infringed on the 10th amendment, first does not understand the 10th amendment and 2nd doesn't understand the 5th amendment.

For one to argue that slavery was not a leading cause of the war, doesn't understand the effect the Dred Scott Case had on history or how prevalent the abolutionary movement was in the North (not saying the North didn't have their prejuidices against the Blacks)!

Well the abolitionist movement in the north was not very prevalent, to be honest. As to abolishing slavery being an infringement on the 10th amendment, nobody has made that claim. However, not allowing the states to secede is an infringement of constitutional rights.

 

[ItsFairmont]

Slavery the cause of the Civil War?

What about the tariffs?


The Southerners dropped out of the Union. Now, why would the North spend so much time, energy, money and men to force the South back into the Union?


Money!


The North needed the South, but the South did not need the North.


It is that simple.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Slavery the cause of the Civil War?

What about the tariffs?


The Southerners dropped out of the Union. Now, why would the North spend so much time, energy, money and men to force the South back into the Union?


Money!


The North needed the South, but the South did not need the North.


It is that simple.

I agree with that. Lincoln only wanted to force the south back into the Union so that they would have to pay their tribute to the federal government.

 

[balatro]

The question is if the Confederate regime was significantly morally distinguishable from the imperialist regimes of the day. Consider, for example, that the Anglo-French opium war (Second Opium War) ended only months before secession. Also, the Native American genocide is at least comparable to Confederate-era slavery in terms of degree of wrongness. No, the issue here, IMO, is one of selective outrage over justifiable outrage.

I think the Lincoln-endorsed Corwin Amendment has already been mentioned. Let me just add that this amendment was/is what’s known as an entrenchment. In other words, it was designed to prevent any future amendments that would’ve given Congress the power to interfere with slavery where it existed.

Lincoln also, prior to his own proclamation, overturned two of his generals’ emancipation proclamations. Additionally, he was calling for both gradual emancipation to the year 1900 and voluntary deportation of the emancipated blacks months after his 1862 proclamation of selective emancipation.

On the subject of emancipation, it’s worth mentioning that Confederate commanders like Lee and Cleburne supported both Southern conditional emancipation (for blacks who served in the Confederate military) and Southern gradualistic universal emancipation. The Davis government also presented to Britain and France an offer of emancipation in exchange for diplomatic recognition. Now, I’m not suggesting that the South turned egalitarian during this period of time. However, the evidence establishes that the characterization of the Confederate upper-echelon as solidly pro-slavery is false.

I have no interest in presenting the Confederate movement as a positive historical force. However, I will oppose to the end the moral isolation of the Confederate regime (i.e., its selective demonization) from the other parasitical oligarchies of that time.