Was the Civil War Worth 600,000 Dead Americans?

[Publius1787]

The south (the confederate gov't) was on the offense as they occupied all the seceded states... US territory.

The states seceded via vote by democratically elected officials in their state. That’s the same way they entered in the union. That’s hardly the occupation you describe. Elected officials who execute the will of the people do not occupy. No new outside force entered to lay claim to the Southern States until northern invasion. The people who were in those states were the same people who have always been there. Occupation? If the American Revolution could be justified via the will of the people then why couldn’t secession be justified by the will of the people? Why was war necessary? For defense? To redress a grievance for a loss? Why?

No, buddy, if you want a new country you have to leave and find one, or steal the land from the original, bearing the consequences fully.

England was most justified going to war with a belligerent colony. We are righteous chiefly because we won that conflict. Same applies with the Civil War. The land the belligerent south occupied, taxes from its produce and the allegiance of its residents belonged to the US, notwithstanding the opinion-making process which concluded otherwise.

Now, you've aimed to shelter your argument on aloofness, but vs England or vs the Union, the belligerents were not aloof. They armed themselves to defend their land-grab.

The Unites States shall not deny any state a republican form of government. Was that not what was exercised? To deny secession would to deny democratic republicanism. Would it not? Was it not the way they entered? Was it not the way they made their exit? Was violence the remedy? For a country founded on self-evident truths, I find it hard to justify invading another for adhering to them. If the land already belongs to you then your not a rebellious occupyer. The federal government only had one 10 X 10 square mile piece of land at the time.

 

[antagon]

The states seceded via vote by democratically elected officials in their state. That’s the same way they entered in the union. That’s hardly the occupation you describe. Elected officials who execute the will of the people do not occupy. No new outside force entered to lay claim to the Southern States until northern invasion. The people who were in those states were the same people who have always been there. Occupation? If the American Revolution could be justified via the will of the people then why couldn’t secession be justified by the will of the people? Why was war necessary? For defense? To redress a grievance for a loss? Why?

No, buddy, if you want a new country you have to leave and find one, or steal the land from the original, bearing the consequences fully.

England was most justified going to war with a belligerent colony. We are righteous chiefly because we won that conflict. Same applies with the Civil War. The land the belligerent south occupied, taxes from its produce and the allegiance of its residents belonged to the US, notwithstanding the opinion-making process which concluded otherwise.

Now, you've aimed to shelter your argument on aloofness, but vs England or vs the Union, the belligerents were not aloof. They armed themselves to defend their land-grab.

The Unites States shall not deny any state a republican form of government. Was that not what was exercised? To deny secession would to deny democratic republicanism. Would it not? Was it not the way they entered? Was it not the way they made their exit? Was violence the remedy? For a country founded on self-evident truths, I find it hard to justify invading another for adhering to them. If the land already belongs to you then your not a rebellious occupyer. The federal government only had one 10 X 10 square mile piece of land at the time.

Nothing stops the US from declaring war on democratic countries. Violence was the remedy hands down. This was not the federal government, but the United States which kicked their asses.

 

[Greenbeard]

Playing stupid also gets you nowhere.

You've pushed back on various posts in this thread disputing points other have made, but I take it from this response you want to blaze ahead and show us the sunny side of the Confederates' treason.

I'm listening. Make your case.

 

[antagon]

Defending your value judgements? Well throw logic and reason out the window then. Why debate anything at all?

Debate? I didn't realize there were even two sides in this thread.

Has someone put forth an affirmative thesis that the Civil War was not worth it?

Playing stupid also gets you nowhere.

Your arguments on this matter rise from playing stupid. It is stupid to think that secession, no mater how democratic, will be left at a gentleman's disagreement. That is plain dumb. You don't seem stupid, so I'm presuming you are playing the role.

 

[Politico]

The south shot first.

 

[Publius1787]

No, buddy, if you want a new country you have to leave and find one, or steal the land from the original, bearing the consequences fully.

England was most justified going to war with a belligerent colony. We are righteous chiefly because we won that conflict. Same applies with the Civil War. The land the belligerent south occupied, taxes from its produce and the allegiance of its residents belonged to the US, notwithstanding the opinion-making process which concluded otherwise.

Now, you've aimed to shelter your argument on aloofness, but vs England or vs the Union, the belligerents were not aloof. They armed themselves to defend their land-grab.

The Unites States shall not deny any state a republican form of government. Was that not what was exercised? To deny secession would to deny democratic republicanism. Would it not? Was it not the way they entered? Was it not the way they made their exit? Was violence the remedy? For a country founded on self-evident truths, I find it hard to justify invading another for adhering to them. If the land already belongs to you then your not a rebellious occupyer. The federal government only had one 10 X 10 square mile piece of land at the time.

Nothing stops the US from declaring war on democratic countries. Violence was the remedy hands down. This was not the federal government, but the United States which kicked their asses.

I don't think that qualifies as a response to my previous post. I was making the legal/ideological argument. Your response does not satisfy the merits of the antithesis of that argument. Nevertheless, what did the United States lose? What were they defending? What wrong was committed that justified a war of such a scale?
Is it not obvious that Lincoln himself threw the Constitution under the bus before the outbreak of war? Are we not a nation of laws? Does the law matter if the president refuses to adhere to it? Is there recourse for justice if those in opposition of the president are locked up to include judges and justices of the court? Does the country exist in law or in a person? Is the law grounded on democratic republican and federalist principles or is it the whims of any one man? If the south offered no injury, seceding via the democratic republican process guaranteed to every state in the U.S. Constitution, then what grievance did the North have, of which, were the first in United States history to threaten secession with President Jefferson asking only that they go in peace in his first inaugural address.

 

[Publius1787]

Debate? I didn't realize there were even two sides in this thread.

Has someone put forth an affirmative thesis that the Civil War was not worth it?

Playing stupid also gets you nowhere.

Your arguments on this matter rise from playing stupid. It is stupid to think that secession, no mater how democratic, will be left at a gentleman's disagreement. That is plain dumb. You don't seem stupid, so I'm presuming you are playing the role.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --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.

The best way to learn is to ask the question adverse to most and play devil’s advocate to the most extreme ability. I am yet to be satisfied with the responses here in my effort. Think of it as a lawyer defending the guilty. He must use his talents to his upmost ability to defend his client via honesty, reason, and logic else it would be legal malpractice. There is a lot of malpractice among the arguments here derived from laziness and Intellectual dishonesty. I don't fear being wrong. I enjoy it. It means that I've learned something. However, among the arguments here, I am learning nothing. That certainly takes the wind out of my sails.

 

[Publius1787]

The south shot first.

I have addressed this to some sorts in another post in this thread. below is the copy.

Who died as a result of Confederate bombardment at Fort Sumter? Who was captured/imprisoned? Besides, the shots at Fort Sumter were not the first shots of the war. Fort Sumter was just the event that Lincoln used to stoke nationalism, calls for war, and cover for raising an army without consent of congress and his suspension of habeas corpus. Lincoln refused to meet with the Southern Peace Commission before any shots were fired anyway. Lincoln wanted war. The South certainly did not.

Now that I've established that no one died as a result of enemy fire on Fort Sumter, what was Fort Sumter's purpose? It’s purpose was to stop ships entering in to the Port of Charleston and enforce teriff law. Did you think that a recently seceded South Carolina was going to allow "foreign" taxation of their imports/goods? Can they enforce secession, a secession voted on by the people of South Carolina, if they are not soverign? Lincoln gave them no choice. He rejected their offer of peace, he rejected their peace commission, and he rejected their soverignty.

 

[antagon]

The best way to learn is to ask the question adverse to most and play devils advocate to the most extream ability. I am yet to be satisfied with the responses here in my effort. Think of it as a lawyer defending the guilty. He must use his talents to his upmost ability to defend his client vial reason and logic else it would be legal malpractice. there is alot of malpractice among the arguements here derived from lazyness and Intellectual dishonesty.

I'm actually not inside your exercise, Pub, but feel that devils' advocate is defined by intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Publius1787]

The best way to learn is to ask the question adverse to most and play devils advocate to the most extream ability. I am yet to be satisfied with the responses here in my effort. Think of it as a lawyer defending the guilty. He must use his talents to his upmost ability to defend his client vial reason and logic else it would be legal malpractice. there is alot of malpractice among the arguements here derived from lazyness and Intellectual dishonesty.

I'm actually not inside your exercise, Pub, but feel that devils' advocate is defined by intellectual dishonesty.

Yeah, I updated my post to better explain it. And truth, honesty, logic, and reason have nothing to do with how you "feel." If your not here to learn among others, then your here due to some funky emotional/behaviorial complex. I don't think that statement falls in the realm of "false delimma."

The best way to learn is to ask the question adverse to most and play devil’s advocate to the most extreme ability. I am yet to be satisfied with the responses here in my effort. Think of it as a lawyer defending the guilty. He must use his talents to his upmost ability to defend his client via honesty, reason, and logic else it would be legal malpractice. There is a lot of malpractice among the arguments here derived from laziness and Intellectual dishonesty. I don't fear being wrong. I enjoy it. It means that I've learned something. However, among the arguments here, I am learning nothing. That certainly takes the wind out of my sails.

 

[antagon]

The Unites States shall not deny any state a republican form of government. Was that not what was exercised? To deny secession would to deny democratic republicanism. Would it not? Was it not the way they entered? Was it not the way they made their exit? Was violence the remedy? For a country founded on self-evident truths, I find it hard to justify invading another for adhering to them. If the land already belongs to you then your not a rebellious occupyer. The federal government only had one 10 X 10 square mile piece of land at the time.

Nothing stops the US from declaring war on democratic countries. Violence was the remedy hands down. This was not the federal government, but the United States which kicked their asses.

I don't think that qualifies as a response to my previous post.

Who cares? I care. I have used some colorful fonts to help you to glean some correlation.

I was making the legal/ideological argument. Your response does not satisfy the merits of the antithesis of that argument.

If what you have put forward are arguments, pardon my observation that they are terse. I replied commensurately. I took the time to elaborate your gist, would you pay me the same credit?

Nevertheless, what did the United States lose? What were they defending? What wrong was committed that justified a war of such a scale?

Power, opportunity, land, constituents, resources, relationships, defenses... What do you see as the value of the southeast, moreover the legacy of sovereignty and other accolades of getting publicly robbed?

Alas, who predicted this scale when the conflict started?

 

[antagon]

The best way to learn is to ask the question adverse to most and play devils advocate to the most extream ability. I am yet to be satisfied with the responses here in my effort. Think of it as a lawyer defending the guilty. He must use his talents to his upmost ability to defend his client vial reason and logic else it would be legal malpractice. there is alot of malpractice among the arguements here derived from lazyness and Intellectual dishonesty.

I'm actually not inside your exercise, Pub, but feel that devils' advocate is defined by intellectual dishonesty.

Yeah, I updated my post to better explain it. And truth, honesty, logic, and reason have nothing to do with how you "feel." If your not here to learn among others, then your here due to some funky emotional/behaviorial complex. I don't think that statement falls in the realm of "false delimma."

The best way to learn is to ask the question adverse to most and play devil’s advocate to the most extreme ability. I am yet to be satisfied with the responses here in my effort. Think of it as a lawyer defending the guilty. He must use his talents to his upmost ability to defend his client via honesty, reason, and logic else it would be legal malpractice. There is a lot of malpractice among the arguments here derived from laziness and Intellectual dishonesty. I don't fear being wrong. I enjoy it. It means that I've learned something. However, among the arguments here, I am learning nothing. That certainly takes the wind out of my sails.

I use 'feel' here synonymously with 'I declare' or ' '. Just a way of softening declarative statements. The etymology on that probably harkens back to the period we're discussing, ironically.

The leap to semantics argumentative criticism and the lack of effort on your part to comprehend my perfectly good communication and reasoning reminds me of failing or insincere arguments I've heard before. Can you tighten that up or bow the hell out?

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's a balanced assessment. The GOP spent a decade trying to build the hope for a permanent majority based on white and black voters in the southern states. In the end, the GOP failed, betrayed black civil rights in the south in return for the Hayes presidency, and concentrated on the western territories that were becoming states.

14th Amendment penalized states that did not guarantee suffrage (Section 2).

That’s right. However, it did not forbid those states to take away voting rights to freedmen, nor did the 14th Amendment apply to women, though it was discussed. Why? Because after the 13th Amendment the 3/5ths clause was null and void. The Republicans did not want the Democrats in the South to benefit from the increase in representation in the House. Exclusion from Congress and the 14th Amendment was the remedy. If they didn’t allow freedmen to vote then the South would be denied the extra seats. If the South did allow the freedmen to vote, Republicans would have a shot in Southern municipalities, districts, and state legislatures. It had nothing to do with being the right thing to do. It had everything to do with Republican power in Congress, and among the states formerly in rebellion. You disagree with this?

 

[Publius1787]

Nothing stops the US from declaring war on democratic countries. Violence was the remedy hands down. This was not the federal government, but the United States which kicked their asses.

I don't think that qualifies as a response to my previous post.

Who cares? I care. I have used some colorful fonts to help you to glean some correlation.

I was making the legal/ideological argument. Your response does not satisfy the merits of the antithesis of that argument.

If what you have put forward are arguments, pardon my observation that they are terse. I replied commensurately. I took the time to elaborate your gist, would you pay me the same credit?

Nevertheless, what did the United States lose? What were they defending? What wrong was committed that justified a war of such a scale?

Power, opportunity, land, constituents, resources, relationships, defenses... What do you see as the value of the southeast, moreover the legacy of sovereignty and other accolades of getting publicly robbed?

Alas, who predicted this scale when the conflict started?

I stand by my previous statements, grounded in Lockeian and Jeffersonian principle. You see, I'm not a conservative part of the time, but all of the time. I could take your argument about power, opportunity, land, constituents, resources, etc. and make the same liberal arguments that you reject so much. I could say that law and reason is not grounded in the individual, but the welfare of the collective, and you would reject that out right. I could say that an individual or a people who elects his/their representatives in a free election to exercise his/their will, doesn’t count if there is another person, in another state, in another election, who feels that his elected officials (who have done them no harm) doesn’t represent their interests, or their lust for power, which gives them the right to invade that state, and you would call me crazy! But in this case, self-evident truths don’t matter. In this case, the U.S. Constitution doesn’t matter. In this case, the principles grounded in the Declaration of Independence don’t matter. In this case, the unalienable right of self-government doesn’t matter. This case is all about other people’s goods that make up a federal privilege, and not of everyone’s rights. This case is all about top down federal strong arming of the states and the harm done to the federal government. You said so yourself. And your argument is no different than that of the liberals you argue against in this forum. Where the natural unalienable rights of the individual is NOT the object of which government was instituted to protect, and the general welfare of a nation can be described as not equal treatment under the law, equal allocation of federal protection, but redistributive in nature against everything James Madison argued in federalist no. 41. This is the argument you are making. Thomas Jefferson would not agree. Why? Because the right of secession is concurrent with the natural rights of man. All the legal, philosophical, and moral arguments you've displayed are the bedrock of modern liberal thought. And, secession off the table, you would not practice the same standard in modern legal and philosophical times.

 

[Publius1787]

That's a balanced assessment. The GOP spent a decade trying to build the hope for a permanent majority based on white and black voters in the southern states. In the end, the GOP failed, betrayed black civil rights in the south in return for the Hayes presidency, and concentrated on the western territories that were becoming states.

14th Amendment penalized states that did not guarantee suffrage (Section 2).

That’s right. However, it did not forbid those states to take away voting rights to freedmen, nor did the 14th Amendment apply to women, though it was discussed. Why? Because after the 13th Amendment the 3/5ths clause was null and void. The Republicans did not want the Democrats in the South to benefit from the increase in representation in the House. Exclusion from Congress and the 14th Amendment was the remedy. If they didn’t allow freedmen to vote then the South would be denied the extra seats. If the South did allow the freedmen to vote, Republicans would have a shot in Southern municipalities, districts, and state legislatures. It had nothing to do with being the right thing to do. It had everything to do with Republican power in Congress, and among the states formerly in rebellion. You disagree with this?

And I didn't even need to look up the Amendment to offer you a reply. The 14th Amendment is perhaps the most complicated and self-contradicting Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. Where privileges and immunities cannot be denied and yet voting, for freedmen, can still be outlawed. Very contradicting indeed. What shall we conclude of the modern interperitation of the 14th Amendment in light of this legal phenomena?

 

[Publius1787]

I'm actually not inside your exercise, Pub, but feel that devils' advocate is defined by intellectual dishonesty.

Yeah, I updated my post to better explain it. And truth, honesty, logic, and reason have nothing to do with how you "feel." If your not here to learn among others, then your here due to some funky emotional/behaviorial complex. I don't think that statement falls in the realm of "false delimma."

The best way to learn is to ask the question adverse to most and play devil’s advocate to the most extreme ability. I am yet to be satisfied with the responses here in my effort. Think of it as a lawyer defending the guilty. He must use his talents to his upmost ability to defend his client via honesty, reason, and logic else it would be legal malpractice. There is a lot of malpractice among the arguments here derived from laziness and Intellectual dishonesty. I don't fear being wrong. I enjoy it. It means that I've learned something. However, among the arguments here, I am learning nothing. That certainly takes the wind out of my sails.

I use 'feel' here synonymously with 'I declare' or ' '. Just a way of softening declarative statements. The etymology on that probably harkens back to the period we're discussing, ironically.

The leap to semantics argumentative criticism and the lack of effort on your part to comprehend my perfectly good communication and reasoning reminds me of failing or insincere arguments I've heard before. Can you tighten that up or bow the hell out?

Semantics? I take a man at his word. I only have the words you give me. I like to debate on the merits. The word "feel" is synonymous with value judgment and is not an argumentative word. Just imagine if you were on trial accused of murder and your lawyer started off his concluding argument with “I feel.”

 

[Sallow]

The states seceded via vote by democratically elected officials in their state. That’s the same way they entered in the union. That’s hardly the occupation you describe. Elected officials who execute the will of the people do not occupy. No new outside force entered to lay claim to the Southern States until northern invasion. The people who were in those states were the same people who have always been there. Occupation? If the American Revolution could be justified via the will of the people then why couldn’t secession be justified by the will of the people? Why was war necessary? For defense? To redress a grievance for a loss? Why?

No, buddy, if you want a new country you have to leave and find one, or steal the land from the original, bearing the consequences fully.

England was most justified going to war with a belligerent colony. We are righteous chiefly because we won that conflict. Same applies with the Civil War. The land the belligerent south occupied, taxes from its produce and the allegiance of its residents belonged to the US, notwithstanding the opinion-making process which concluded otherwise.

Now, you've aimed to shelter your argument on aloofness, but vs England or vs the Union, the belligerents were not aloof. They armed themselves to defend their land-grab.

The Unites States shall not deny any state a republican form of government. Was that not what was exercised? To deny secession would to deny democratic republicanism. Would it not? Was it not the way they entered? Was it not the way they made their exit? Was violence the remedy? For a country founded on self-evident truths, I find it hard to justify invading another for adhering to them. If the land already belongs to you then your not a rebellious occupyer. The federal government only had one 10 X 10 square mile piece of land at the time.

Oh bullshit.

You guys are so ignorant of the Constitution it's not funny..

Once the south elected their own government and started coining their own money they were in open rebellion of the United States. Nothing in the Constitution allows for that. They may have had a case had they brought their case to the congress and passed legislation allowing for secession, which, by the way, would have been near impossible to do.

The south committed treason...and cost this country American lives and treasure. And they were let off far to easy for their treachery.

 

[Publius1787]

No, buddy, if you want a new country you have to leave and find one, or steal the land from the original, bearing the consequences fully.

England was most justified going to war with a belligerent colony. We are righteous chiefly because we won that conflict. Same applies with the Civil War. The land the belligerent south occupied, taxes from its produce and the allegiance of its residents belonged to the US, notwithstanding the opinion-making process which concluded otherwise.

Now, you've aimed to shelter your argument on aloofness, but vs England or vs the Union, the belligerents were not aloof. They armed themselves to defend their land-grab.

The Unites States shall not deny any state a republican form of government. Was that not what was exercised? To deny secession would to deny democratic republicanism. Would it not? Was it not the way they entered? Was it not the way they made their exit? Was violence the remedy? For a country founded on self-evident truths, I find it hard to justify invading another for adhering to them. If the land already belongs to you then your not a rebellious occupyer. The federal government only had one 10 X 10 square mile piece of land at the time.

Oh bullshit.

You guys are so ignorant of the Constitution it's not funny..

Once the south elected their own government and started coining their own money they were in open rebellion of the United States. Nothing in the Constitution allows for that. They may have had a case had they brought their case to the congress and passed legislation allowing for secession, which, by the way, would have been near impossible to do.

The south committed treason...and cost this country American lives and treasure. And they were let off far to easy for their treachery.

Where in the Constitution does it deny secession?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Constitution did not, SCOTUS later did, so the legality was tried by combat.

Guess who lost?

 

[Publius1787]

The Constitution did not, SCOTUS later did, so the legality was tried by combat.

Guess who lost?

5 or 6 of thoes Justices appointed by Lincoln and rubber stamped by a Congress without an opposing party. The funny thing is that if the states had never left the union, the 14th Amendment would have been unconstitutionally ratified. Using the same legal rationale they did.