Grifman
Posts: 156
Joined: 7/6/2002 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey The Confederate action of firing on Fort Sumter was a damn-fool stunt, and I'm happy to condemn it as belligerent and stupid. But it killed one horse, only. It was the proximate cause of the war that as you note killed half a million people. Sorry, you can't lay all the blame on the North here. No rebellion, no war - pretty simple, really. quote:
The Union action (in response) of conquering the Confederacy by military force killed half a million people and wounded half a million more. It also caused a vast amount of destruction, mostly in the Southern states. And maybe the South should have thought of that before revolting. Again, you just can't pin this on the North. Want to blame both, fine - but to try and put most of the blame on the North just isn't historical. quote:
Doesn't this seem rather disproportionate? No, not given what the ultimate result would have been - a concept of nationhood that would have meant nothing. North American could have conceivably ended up with dozens of nations, as any time some state didn't like something, they'd just decide to leave. What kind of democracy is it when the losers in an election can just leave? That's not a democracy - or a nation. quote:
What was achieved by all this death and destruction except to replace one government by another quite similar government? They weren't similar - if you believe that the South would have allowed secession. THat's a crucial difference - and what the war was about. The concept of nationhood and democracy. And even more can be seen in the racial attitudes of the South in the 50's and 60's. The North wasn't a paradise of racial harmony but the old racial attitudes lasted way too long in the South. A Southern victory would have perpetuated those racial attitudes much longer than they ended up lasting. Think of a North American "South Africa" well into the 20th century. quote:
If those same states seceded tomorrow, and the USA waged the same war against them, I'd regard the US President as no better than Hitler or Stalin. A desire for political separation is no excuse for mass murder. Oh, please don't be silly. If you're going to equate Abraham Lincoln to Hitler and Stalin, no one's going to take you seriously. And exactly who's mass murdering here? War is not the same as mass murder. I am not convinced by your rhetorical excess, though I am amused. quote:
"The US govt had every right and indeed obligation to bring the rebel states to heel." Help, I need a sick bag, now. Please go and reread the US declaration of independence, where it talks about governments deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. You should need a sick bag at this point given your arguments. The Southern states had their representation in the Senate and US House and could vote for president. As such they had the right and ability to express their views under the Constitution - and get them enacted in laws if they could muster enough support. It's quite obvious that "consent of the govern" doesn't mean that any one or any state could leave whenever they didn't consent - if so then why even have elections, because someonw will always lose, and hence not in some sense "consent" to that govt. Democracy doesn't guarantee that your positions will be implemented into law and never has. Yet that is what you are demanding.' And while we'r reading the Constitution, where in the Constitution does it say you can pick up your marbles and leave if you don't like an election result? quote:
As a matter of interest, do you think that the British government in the 18th century had the same right and obligation to bring the rebel states to heel? Do you regret that it failed? The American colonies had no representation in Parliment. Hence they had every right to rebel because they had no say in their govt. Unfortunately, the South did have representation in the US govt. They are not the same situation before their respective rebellions. quote:
"And what about those Southerners who wanted no part of the Confederacy? Didn't they have the right for their govt to protect them?" I don't think that white Union sympathizers in the South were in danger. Maybe the black slaves would have liked US government protection, but that same government had never recognized them as citizens. ' Whoa, but Southern unionists didn't give their consent to the separation from the North. Now you're hoisted on your own petard. Don't they have rights? Wasn't it wrong for the South to secede when they didn't give their consent? What about their rights? What about their consent? Hmmm, seems like things are breaking down a bit here for you. And do you really think a southern unionist exercising his free speech going around calling Jeff Davis a traitor would have lasted long? Hmm, loan me your bag please - I think I need it now. quote:
"Throughout history gov't have tried to maintain order by quashing rebellions." Let me rephrase that. Throughout history kings and politicians have tried to maintain their power by massacring anyone who stood in their way. The sooner this tradition is extinguished, the better. Oh, please, if anyone was trying to "maintain" their power it was the Southern white upper class. They led the movement into war and were those most strongly behind it. I suggest you take your own perscription and apply to the South and it's motives at the same time you try and apply it to the North.
|