How far does this logic extend? I live in the United States. Generations of lawfully elected representatives have made agreements on my behalf. Which ones can I ignore, because I claim adherence to a “social contract” that contradicts those agreements?
The other side of the coin was maintaining and perpetuating slavery. It’s for you to say that the latter is not worth the former.
This argument is confusing. It is after all a social contract which binds an individual to a form of government.
The Southern States choose to secede in order to keep their slave driven lifestyle. It’s they who caused the death of so many. Rather than defending their actions, you should be praying for their souls.
Well if you need gold, oil, and land bad enough, you could give them diseases they had no immunity to, steal their land, forcibly march them across the country onto reservations, and massacre them…
They’ll never get over it. They’ll just keep writing their revisionist texts, and grumbling when they think no one was listening about how magical Jeffey Davis was.
They did have the right. Just like the United States had the right to declare independence and establish a nation which included slavery. The United States is one big experiment we’re still working on. But you are correct. The north was constantly breaking the compromises in order to gain more power in Congress and ultimately control the flow of money. The south had no obligation to sick around. But the north won the war and the winners write the history.
The Southern states chose to secede because they could never have substantial representation in the House of Representatives due to the much lower numbers of population which allowed northern politicians to ram through Congress anything and everything that was beneficial to them and detrimental to the South. By 1860, over half of the GDP was from the production of cotton, yet Southern states couldn’t get the kind of legislation passed that would allow them modernize. The United States of America was founded after a revolution against the legitimate authority of Great Britain because it wasn’t allowed to pass laws and effect policies that were beneficial to it. If you think that Southern States caused the death of many during the Civil War, then you should also believe that the inhabitants of the original 13 colonies also caused the deaths of those during the Revolution, including perhaps some of your ancestors.
There was nothing in the Constitution that did not allow slavery, nor was there anything that deemed secession to be an illegal act. It was an open question until the Civil War settled it. Funny how we criticize the Roe vs Wade decision for finding the supposed “right” of privacy in the Constitution when it isn’t even mentioned, yet condemn people from the past for practicing something that wasn’t prohibited by the Constitution. Abraham Lincoln asked Stephen Douglas in the famous Lincoln/Douglas debates how the government could outlaw the institution of slavery when it was allowed by the Constitution. Douglas did not have an answer.
Yeah, God bless Sherman for all of the death and misery he created on his march to sea. Glory, Glory Hallelujah.
That was nothing compared to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But that’s how just wars work, right?
Kinda apples and oranges…don’t cha think?That was nothing compared to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But that’s how just wars work, right?
