Confederacy not as bad?

[bthoma91]

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.

 

[Jon]

The South was right on states' right, which was the real issue with the Civil War. Slavery would have been abolished eventually, even if the South had won the war. What the Civil War did was mark the beginning of the end of states' rights. Obama's election seems to be the end of the end of states' rights.

 

[Iriemon]

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.

What is so wonderful about state's rights?

Are you an American or a Marylander first?

But it is a good question. We have as a nation supported secession movements when it was in our best interest. Panama is a classic example. Yet not when it was a part of our nation that wanted to succeed.

American has unfortunately had a lot of double standards when it comes to rules that we think should apply to other nations as opposed to what we think should apply to us.

The waterboarding torture thing is just the most recent example.

 

[Jon]

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.

 

[Immanuel]

I'd say that as in many if not most conflicts there is a little bit of "truth" in both sides of the argument. The South was right on state's rights, but very, very wrong on slavery.

As for the Union, well, state's rights is a "grey" (no pun intended) area and the Union fought not only to defend what they perceived as state rights, but also to defend the federal union and in regards to slavery, well, it is perceived that the union was against slavery when, in fact, had it not been for succession, the North would have been content to allow slavery to continue in the Southern states.

So, although, you might have been raised, North Good--South Bad, there was a little bit of Good and Bad on both sides.

Immie

 

[Mad Scientist]

What is so wonderful about state's rights?

Are you an American or a Marylander first?

But it is a good question. We have as a nation supported secession movements when it was in our best interest. Panama is a classic example. Yet not when it was a part of our nation that wanted to succeed.

American has unfortunately had a lot of double standards when it comes to rules that we think should apply to other nations as opposed to what we think should apply to us.

The waterboarding torture thing is just the most recent example.

You've turned a discussion about states right in to one about torture.

Why?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Both sides were wrong on the issue of slavery. Too many people forget that there were five slave states that remained in the Union, and they remained slave states until after the Civil War. The fact is that the Confederacy had every right to secede and Lincoln subverted the Constitution to force them back into the Union.

 

[Newby]

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.

What is so wonderful about state's rights?

You need a history lesson. Start with the Constitution and the federalist papers.

 

[Newby]

Both sides were wrong on the issue of slavery. Too many people forget that there were five slave states that remained in the Union, and they remained slave states until after the Civil War. The fact is that the Confederacy had every right to secede and Lincoln subverted the Constitution to force them back into the Union.

Yes, states rights are very important to maintaining the equal balance of power in this country and to keep the feds from getting out of control, as they are right now.

 

[Sinatra]

What is so wonderful about state's rights?

Are you an American or a Marylander first?

But it is a good question. We have as a nation supported secession movements when it was in our best interest. Panama is a classic example. Yet not when it was a part of our nation that wanted to succeed.

American has unfortunately had a lot of double standards when it comes to rules that we think should apply to other nations as opposed to what we think should apply to us.

The waterboarding torture thing is just the most recent example.

You've turned a discussion about states right in to one about torture.

Why?

Because it is morally convenient for her to do so?

Plus, she assures us she works with "hardcore" gang members.

So that alone justifies the wayward logic, no?

 

[Newby]

What is so wonderful about state's rights?

Are you an American or a Marylander first?

But it is a good question. We have as a nation supported secession movements when it was in our best interest. Panama is a classic example. Yet not when it was a part of our nation that wanted to succeed.

American has unfortunately had a lot of double standards when it comes to rules that we think should apply to other nations as opposed to what we think should apply to us.

The waterboarding torture thing is just the most recent example.

You've turned a discussion about states right in to one about torture.

Why?

Because it is morally convenient for her to do so?

Plus, she assures us she works with "hardcore" gang members.

So that alone justifies the wayward logic, no?

Wasn't that Catzmeow? Altho, it is easy to confuse the two of them.

 

[wihosa]

States rights can't supercede an individuals right to "life, liberty and the the pursuit of hapiness". Clearly the South was wrong. Had the South won it is very likely that slavery would have persisted for a very long time afterward, perhaps until today. It's hard to imagine a world in which the United States, the loser in a war over human rights would become the world's leader in human rights had it failed to guarantee them for a large segment of their own society

 

[Gunny]

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.

What is so wonderful about state's rights?

Are you an American or a Marylander first?

But it is a good question. We have as a nation supported secession movements when it was in our best interest. Panama is a classic example. Yet not when it was a part of our nation that wanted to succeed.

American has unfortunately had a lot of double standards when it comes to rules that we think should apply to other nations as opposed to what we think should apply to us.

The waterboarding torture thing is just the most recent example.

Nice non-answer. Stop trying to hijack the thread. States Rights has nothing to do with waterboarding.

 

[Gunny]

States rights can't supercede an individuals right to "life, liberty and the the pursuit of hapiness". Clearly the South was wrong. Had the South won it is very likely that slavery would have persisted for a very long time afterward, perhaps until today. It's hard to imagine a world in which the United States, the loser in a war over human rights would become the world's leader in human rights had it failed to guarantee them for a large segment of their own society

The South was not wrong and had nothing to do with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Slavery was on it's way out already. Slaves were a lot more expensive than machinery.

There was no war over human rights. The US Civil War was fought over power and money.

 

[wihosa]

Why this attempt to deny the obvious. The issue of States Rights was about a State's right to allow slavery.

Again, no State has the right to violate an indiviuals rights.

Slavery was not on the way out, it was being expanded with the growth of the United States.

 

[Gunny]

Why this attempt to deny the obvious. The issue of States Rights was about a State's right to allow slavery.

Again, no State has the right to violate an indiviuals rights.

Slavery was not on the way out, it was being expanded with the growth of the United States.

I'm not attempting to deny anything. What was slavery, Einstein? The means of Southern wealth and power. Only a tiny faction in the North gave a damn about slavery. A big faction with a lot of money an power gave a damn about controlling Congress.

The issue of states rights was NOT about a states right to own slavery. Slavery where it existed was not threatened at all. The balance of power in Congress was threatened.

Learn to read instead of spouting the over-simplified, rewritten after-the-fact version.

 

[WorldAHope]

States rights can't supercede an individuals right to "life, liberty and the the pursuit of hapiness". Clearly the South was wrong. Had the South won it is very likely that slavery would have persisted for a very long time afterward, perhaps until today. It's hard to imagine a world in which the United States, the loser in a war over human rights would become the world's leader in human rights had it failed to guarantee them for a large segment of their own society

The South was not wrong and had nothing to do with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Slavery was on it's way out already. Slaves were a lot more expensive than machinery.

There was no war over human rights. The US Civil War was fought over power and money.

It was fought because a group of states tried to secede from the union, theie main point of contention was Slavery.
And the country (the North) elected a President and who was willing to go to war to prevent secession, and there were many in the Congress (North) who were willing to support the war to stop secession.

It was mostly about the South resisting pressure from the Federal government to force Southern slave allowing states to override state laws and abolish Slavery.

 

[WorldAHope]

Why this attempt to deny the obvious. The issue of States Rights was about a State's right to allow slavery.

Again, no State has the right to violate an indiviuals rights.

Slavery was not on the way out, it was being expanded with the growth of the United States.

I'm not attempting to deny anything. What was slavery, Einstein? The means of Southern wealth and power. Only a tiny faction in the North gave a damn about slavery. A big faction with a lot of money an power gave a damn about controlling Congress.

The issue of states rights was NOT about a states right to own slavery. Slavery where it existed was not threatened at all. The balance of power in Congress was threatened.

Learn to read instead of spouting the over-simplified, rewritten after-the-fact version.

Actually, the Abolitionist movement in the North had grown pretty big, and was loud and well financed.
A lot of members in Congress were elected primarily Because they were outright Abolitionists, and there were regularly huge Abolition rallies across the North. It was not a small movement, it attracted thousands to wild whip them up marches and rallies in cities that had populations back then of less than 25,000.
There was also a great deal of anti-black racism and slavery sympathisers, in the North, as well.

 

[wihosa]

There is a strange virus in America which seeks to denigrate the accomplishments of one of our greatest Presidents and all that followed his lead.

The Civil War was about and fought over slavery.

Those that argue against this truth are the ones re-writing history.

 

[WorldAHope]

Why this attempt to deny the obvious. The issue of States Rights was about a State's right to allow slavery.

Again, no State has the right to violate an indiviuals rights.

Slavery was not on the way out, it was being expanded with the growth of the United States.

I'm not attempting to deny anything. What was slavery, Einstein? The means of Southern wealth and power. Only a tiny faction in the North gave a damn about slavery. A big faction with a lot of money an power gave a damn about controlling Congress.

The issue of states rights was NOT about a states right to own slavery. Slavery where it existed was not threatened at all. The balance of power in Congress was threatened.

Learn to read instead of spouting the over-simplified, rewritten after-the-fact version.

Actually, the Abolitionist movement in the North had grown pretty big, and was loud and well financed.
A lot of members in Congress were elected primarily Because they were outright Abolitionists, and there were regularly huge Abolition rallies across the North. It was not a small movement, it attracted thousands to wild whip them up marches and rallies in cities that had populations back then of less than 25,000.
There was also a great deal of anti-black racism and slavery sympathisers, in the North, as well.

As far as current States' Rights, has anyone mentioned the 2000 election, where the Federal Supreme Court intervened, overrindig the Florida Supreme Court's decision to conduct recounts ?
Any discussion about teh Federal government stomping on a State's legal jurisdiction over election laws.
That was an unprecedented intrusion.
I'm surprised the Florida Governor did not call out the militia and demand that the FL legislature enact a Bill of Secession from the union for that egregious dictatorial overruling of standing election regulations for the sole purpose of handing one candidate Florida's Electoral College votes.
...oh....his name was Bush, and the legislature had a Republican majority....

How come no states diod that in teh last election? A lot of close votes, North Carolina, Indiana, Ohio,
Missouri,
and the close Senatorial election in Minnesota - Coleman was in the lead, lost it on recount.
He should have taken his case directly to SCOTUS, demanded that SCOTUS override state law and direct all recount activity to be illegal.
With Bush v. Gore as the main precedent.

States' rights, my ass.
Nobody gives a crap about States' rights unless it suits their current purpose.
Politicians and States Righters will flip on that fundamental topic as quick as preacher who crusades against gay marriage and homosexuals will dive into bed with a cute boy he invites to go on a one-on-one "prayer" retreat.