Seceeding from the Union

[AlexanderWSmith]

The other country can happily have all of the racists and gun toting bunch.

I ceased reading at that point. I am SICK of everyone thinking that secession = racist bigoted people firing guns in the air.

You make me SICK. You are exactly the reason why new england needs to be its own country. Thank you for the RACIST and BIGOTED remark about all Southerners being racist and guntoting.

You have proven my point.

 

[AlexanderWSmith]

you can sure as heck say that again. If you need to force people to swallow your point of view, then it isn’t really diversity but rather submission that you celebrate. In this very post you have characterized those who oppose your position as gun toting racists, yet you want us to believe that we are valued brothers in your society. Ask anyone, by the time a relationship is characterized by contempt it is already over, it’s only a matter of time till both parties find out.

This is exactly what has me at wits end. I am sick of tolerance being code language for anti-white. I am sick of anytime someone mentions White Rights they are instantly branded a racist. I am sick of Southerners being criticised by the entire country for being christians.

Very well said, Inego de Loyola.

I’m sick of tolerance being the bandwagon used to oppress Churches and our rights to practice our faith.

Wake up, folks, the war on Christianity is being waged.

 

[ThatOrthodoxGuy]

I ceased reading at that point. I am SICK of everyone thinking that secession = racist bigoted people firing guns in the air.

You make me SICK. You are exactly the reason why new england needs to be its own country. Thank you for the RACIST and BIGOTED remark about all Southerners being racist and guntoting.

You have proven my point.

I could not have said it better

 

[AlexanderWSmith]

I could not have said it better

That melting pot is a lie. If there were going to be a melting pot then we would have mixed by now. That pot’s been boiling oil and water for 150 years. Its not mixing. Time to try something else.

I just want to be able to do things like ABOLISH ABORTION. Like have government not involved in the education of our children. That’s a recipie for total disaster. Education should be private and we should lean on the Church and even the protestant churches to help with education of children. Not the government.

I want the government OUT OF THE CHURCH. I’m sick of them poking their head in like they did with contraception recently. Like they did with using code violations to prevent people from gathering for bible studies but allowing beer bashes.

Anyone who thinks that the gauntlet has not been thrown down now is insane. Its time for a new South and a New North. The nation can NOT continue with such disparate views.

The Social Conservative ideology is the very last shred of Christian enclaves left on the planet. If we fall, that’s it. And we’re falling hard now. Have been for ages.

Fight for your faith.

Deo vindice

 

[ThatOrthodoxGuy]

That melting pot is a lie. If there were going to be a melting pot then we would have mixed by now. That pot’s been boiling oil and water for 150 years. Its not mixing. Time to try something else.

I just want to be able to do things like ABOLISH ABORTION. Like have government not involved in the education of our children. That’s a recipie for total disaster. Education should be private and we should lean on the Church and even the protestant churches to help with education of children. Not the government.

I want the government OUT OF THE CHURCH. I’m sick of them poking their head in like they did with contraception recently. Like they did with using code violations to prevent people from gathering for bible studies but allowing beer bashes.

Anyone who thinks that the gauntlet has not been thrown down now is insane. Its time for a new South and a New North. The nation can NOT continue with such disparate views.

The Social Conservative ideology is the very last shred of Christian enclaves left on the planet. If we fall, that’s it. And we’re falling hard now. Have been for ages.

Fight for your faith.

Deo vindice

This liberal cancer has killed this nation. These men spit in the face of our God. Its just makes me mad

 

[AlexanderWSmith]

It is truly meet to bless thee, 0 Theotokos, who art ever blessed and all-blameless, and the mother of our God. More honorable than the Cherubim, and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim, thou who without stain barest God the Word, and art truly Theoto-kos: we magnify thee.

Beautiful prayer, by the way.

 

[ThatOrthodoxGuy]

Beautiful prayer, by the way.

Thanks:thumbsup: It is one of my most favorite prayers.

 

[PeterGStanley]

I guess this talk comes because of the election - its funny people who claim to believe so much in democracy are ready toss it aside when the election doesn’t go they way they want.The people have spoken.Some times it doesn’t go the way you want - you wait for the next election and change can come.You can protest against whats wrong and live to your values but you can’t spit in the face of the system simply because your party didn’t win and if you do you don’t believe in democracy.It not like the Dem will be there for ever.Thats the great thing about democracy there is always an opportunity for change.

So for all those Donald Trumpers out there grow up.

Have faith that God is in control.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

I guess this talk comes because of the election - its funny people who claim to believe so much in democracy are ready toss it aside when the election doesn’t go they way they want.The people have spoken.Some times it doesn’t go the way you want - you wait for the next election and change can come.You can protest against whats wrong and live to your values but you can’t spit in the face of the system simply because your party didn’t win and if you do you don’t believe in democracy.It not like the Dem will be there for ever.Thats the great thing about democracy there is always an opportunity for change.

So for all those Donald Trumpers out there grow up.

Have faith that God is in control.

Nope. This isn’t about the election, but the election was more or less about this. I assume you posted this before reading the thread, so i’ll give you a chance to catch up.

 

[Mar044]

well, if the military moves in then i guess you can’t lecture others on democracy anymore. quebec once nearly seperated from canada in 1995, it didn’t happen, the people will not part a nation, and america wont allow it to be split, and I don’t think anyone will take up issue with a M1 tank

 

[Marc_Anthony]

As we have discussed it is legitimate to do so when there is a rebellion or invasion, and, unlike Lincoln, Davis had to deal with both. In either case that is a much lesser concern than using such a suspension to arrest legislators.

Are you saying that people in the border states didn’t rebel?

Your view is unbelievably biased toward the South. No, Lincoln was no white knight. No, the North wasn’t a moral compass. Let’s not act as if the South and Davis were so much better. They weren’t. That’s one of the biggest myths of the Civil War.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

As we have discussed it is legitimate to do so when there is a rebellion or invasion, and, unlike Lincoln, Davis had to deal with both. In either case that is a much lesser concern than using such a suspension to arrest legislators.

Let’s go a step further-the South attacked first. Did Lincoln manipulate them into it, in a sense? Yeah. But they still did. Furthermore, the South WAS rebelling. Nobody yet has defined a difference between rebellion and secession, including the founding fathers who believed it was a right (let’s not kid ourselves that the founders agreed on that point). That’s because there’s no difference. It sounds good on paper, but that’s it.

And do you know when a rebellion is just? When the force the people are rebelling from are truly unjust. The government was not elected unlawfully. Lincoln did not want to abolish the South’s way of life. I will not, and never will, deny that the South met a great many injustices at the hands of the North, and the march to the Sea (and destruction of South Carolina, which was even worse) will never be just. The South had a lot of legitimate problems with the North, but because the majority of the people want different things than you do, and you agreed that this was a matter on which you could vote, is still not a reason to rebel.

And finally, a lot of people who are Southern sympathizers like to continually say that the war wasn’t about slavery. It was. The South was extremely worried that the North was going to abolish slavery, and that was their major issue with the North’s dominance of power. It wasn’t the sole reason, but you’d need to be blind not to pretend that it wasn’t a major one.

Also, remember that the Constitution was not the Declaration of Independence. What Jefferson wrote down in the Declaration and what those at the Constitutional Convention agreed upon as their written law are not equivalent.

Look, I am not a Northern sympathizer. The South had a lot of legitimate issues. The North, now that it realized that it had more people and thus more power within a democracy, was trying to force its way of life onto the South and subjugate them to their will. This was wrong. So was secession.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Maryland can thank the Lord God that Lee disagreed with you.

You are entitled to your own opinion even if you are competely wrong.

It was a legal secession, which even Lincoln acknowledged prior to the war.

The legality was very debatable at best, and just curious when did Lincoln acknowledge this? Before you post another link like your link below, may I remind you that you have to do your own research, I am under absolutely no obligation to do your googling for you.

bit.ly/VRloaB

At that time, secession would have been ipso facto treason. Thus, Lincoln arrested a bunch of politicians who were discussing a crime, not the first or last time politicians would meet to do that.

Did Francis Marion not count? In which case neither did the relatively few instances of guerrilla war carried out by the confederacy; which mostly used, and pioneered, trench warfare and mobility tactics.

My point exactly, unconventional warfare requires unconventional methods to counter it.

Even if I conceded that the North had a right to Fort Sumter, which the Confederacy had exhausted every peaceable means to obtain, it still would not have justified a war of conquest to seize all of the seceded states, and even if I conceded that they were right in making that conquest, that still would not excuse the barbarism employed by the union to achieve that end.

Fort Sumter was property of the US Army, paid for by the United States. The attack on Fort Sumter justified a war of conquest in the same way the attack on Pearl Harbor justified our complete and total defeat of the Japanese. Also, war crimes were committed by both sides, Confederate officers excuted black soldiers taken prisoner.

Please tell us more, because this position contradicts established history and primary sources. Which they didn’t commit.

Primary sources and established history?? Probably Southerners bitter over the fact that they had to pick their own cotton and were desperately trying to justify the unjustifiable.

The Supreme court said otherwise (Which is why the Chief Justice was almost arrested.)

SCOTUS was wrong, but then again, this was the same kangaroo court that wrote the Dredd Scott decision.

Their was no Rebellion, and the first to invade was the north. Even if we concede that the North had rightful claim to Fort Sumter, which they didn’t, it was an attack on an American fort on Confederate land not an invasion.

Same situation as Pearl Harbor.

So the ends Justify the means? And just why was the preservation of the union against the wishes of it’s former members so important anyway?

Why was the preservation of black slavery so important?

 

[AlexanderWSmith]

THe line was drawn in the sand by the South at Fort Sumter. Lincoln decided to not yield there and that is what caused firing on the supply caravan. Thats like blaming the cop for tasing your when you’re acting a fool. The NORTH took first action by refusing to give up sumter.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Are you saying that people in the border states didn’t rebel?

Your view is unbelievably biased toward the South. No, Lincoln was no white knight. No, the North wasn’t a moral compass. Let’s not act as if the South and Davis were so much better. They weren’t. That’s one of the biggest myths of the Civil War.

Did they? Please provide information of their taking martial action against the union prior to the unlawful arrest of their legislatures. I am not terribly fond of Davis for many reasons, but he was a saint on earth by comparison. The facts are unbelievably biased, if not towards the South, then at the least against the North. Whether the South was much better than the North in it’s conduct during the war can be well seen by how they acted when in enemy territory. No one laments Lee’s bloody march to Pennsylvania. Whatever can be said of the south it cannot be said they were the aggressors of an unjust war and unlawful occupiers of a foreign land, which is the principal claim I have made against the North. It doesn’t harm my position in the least to say that not every southerner alive in 1860 has been canonized. There were and are bad men in every nation from Vatican City to the Russian Federation.

 

[HansTrappist]

That’s a settled question.

The last time a bunch of misguided people tried it it cost 800,000 lives and economically destroyed the third of the country that tried it for 80 years.

Don’t make us go all “Grant and Sherman” on your butts again!

The** voluntary **union of the founding fathers was destroyed in 1865.

The more I studied Lincoln the more I realized that he was actually a racist tryant who did more to destroy the Constitution than perhaps any President in our history while waging one of the most unnecessary, unjust, bloody wars in human history. Of course, the popular media (predictably) will not give you this impression. Historian Lee Kennett had it right when he wrote, in Marching Through Georgia, that had the Confederates somehow won the war, they would have been justified in “stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command” as war criminals, especially for waging a total war that directly targeted civilian populations.

In his book When in the Course of Human Events, historian Charles Adams writes:

By the nineteenth century, the concept of a just war became a part of the law of nations even though it had been an unwritten rule of society since the Middle Ages…At West Point cadets were taught the principles of international law under General Order no. 12, by none other than Lincoln’s top commander, General Henry Halleck…No Union general during the Civil War can claim ignorance of the laws, especially the laws againt the plunder and devastation of private property…As Sherman and Sheridan were undertaking the devastation of civilian life and property, sixteen European nations met in Geneva, Switzerland, to codify the laws of war in what we call the first Geneva Convention on War…

Historian B.H. Liddell Hart says that Lincoln’s policy “was in many ways the prototype of modern total war.”

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Let’s go a step further-the South attacked first. Did Lincoln manipulate them into it, in a sense? Yeah. But they still did. Furthermore, the South WAS rebelling. Nobody yet has defined a difference between rebellion and secession, including the founding fathers who believed it was a right (let’s not kid ourselves that the founders agreed on that point). That’s because there’s no difference. It sounds good on paper, but that’s it. And do you know when a rebellion is just? When the force the people are rebelling from are truly unjust. The government was not elected unlawfully.

I that case the Mexican American war, the american revolution, and by extension the war of 1812, were unjust rebellions. In other words either the south had the right to secede, or every single war in American history up to it was either open rebellion or aiding and abetting the rebellion of others.

Lincoln did not want to abolish the South’s way of life.

No of course he didn’t, the north needed southern cotton for their textile mills as well as to purchase the slaves they’d been capturing. He didn’t want to abolish the south, he, and other northern elements, wanted to own it. The south found the federal policies to be heavily weighted to northern interests and considered that they would be better served as separate nations.

I will not, and never will, deny that the South met a great many injustices at the hands of the North, and the march to the Sea (and destruction of South Carolina, which was even worse) will never be just. The South had a lot of legitimate problems with the North, but because the majority of the people want different things than you do, and you agreed that this was a matter on which you could vote, is still not a reason to rebel.

I’m glad we’re on the same page.

And finally, a lot of people who are Southern sympathizers like to continually say that the war wasn’t about slavery. It was. The South was extremely worried that the North was going to abolish slavery, and that was their major issue with the North’s dominance of power. It wasn’t the sole reason, but you’d need to be blind not to pretend that it wasn’t a major one.

I think you think I’m saying thing’s i’m not saying, as I have said elsewhere on this forum:
"Inego De Loyola:

The three main concerns in order of importance were I) The powers of the federal government, especially in regard to taxing and otherwise acting in favor of some states more than others.
II) The states right to self govern according to the will of the people. (See the catholic teachings on subsidiarity.) III) Lastly and least, the perceived right to hold slaves.

I definitely affirm that the third concern on that list was gravely immoral at the very least as it was executed.

Also, remember that the Constitution was not the Declaration of Independence. What Jefferson wrote down in the Declaration and what those at the Constitutional Convention agreed upon as their written law are not equivalent.

Tell me, where did the Constitution prohibit the states from seceding? I’m sorry to say I will want a detailed quotation on that.

Look, I am not a Northern sympathizer. The South had a lot of legitimate issues. The North, now that it realized that it had more people and thus more power within a democracy, was trying to force its way of life onto the South and subjugate them to their will. This was wrong. So was secession.

I was with you right up until that last sentence.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

At that time, secession would have been ipso facto treason. Thus, Lincoln arrested a bunch of politicians who were discussing a crime, not the first or last time politicians would meet to do that.

No, no it wasn’t treason. Treason would be forcibly disrupting the lawful representatives of the people you are sworn to serve from carrying out their duties, especially in a time of war.

My point exactly, unconventional warfare requires unconventional methods to counter it.

So if I get what you’re saying right, the fact that they didn’t line up in a row to be shot at means they are guerrillas, and therefore it is okay to wage total war and murder civilians. You are a champion of moral theology.

Fort Sumter was property of the US Army, paid for by the United States. The attack on Fort Sumter justified a war of conquest in the same way the attack on Pearl Harbor justified our complete and total defeat of the Japanese. Also, war crimes were committed by both sides, Confederate officers excuted black soldiers taken prisoner.

I) Pearl harbor was not at the opening of Tokyo bay. II) America was not trying to unlawfully tax Japanese trade from Pearl Harbor. III) Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack. The confederates, on the other hand, had made numerous attempts to buy Fort Sumter or to make other peaceable arrangements to obtain it and had warned the union Garrison before the attack. IV) By suggesting that all American actions against the Japanese during WWII were justified, (I’m thinking of two in particular) I think you graduated from Champion moral theologian to Doctor of the Faith.

Primary sources and established history?? Probably Southerners bitter over the fact that they had to pick their own cotton and were desperately trying to justify the unjustifiable.

No i’m referring to Lee’s letters and conduct after the war.*

SCOTUS was wrong, but then again, this was the same kangaroo court that wrote the Dredd Scott decision.

It is possible SCOTUS was wrong, they have been before and since, but that doesn’t mean the president can just ignore their ruling.

Same situation as Pearl Harbor.

See above, and recalibrate your moral compass. Okay if we haven’t left off of this subject let’s consider this, Pearl Harbor was the first step in a series of aggressive actions against the US on US territory. Further, after the war, Japan was allowed to remain a sovereign nation even keeping it’s Emperor, but terms of surrender were somewhat different for the south, except for the fact that in both cases it was understood that the US would murder more civilians and destroy more cities if their demands weren’t met.

Why was the preservation of black slavery so important?

To me? It is not and I roundly condemn it, but it was hardly the primary motivation for the war. (See my above post.) To the South? because if they were all freed en masse there would be roaming bands of starving ex-slaves with no means of support (Glad that never happened ) as well as because the livelihood of many southerners depended on it. To the North? Because the slave trade was a thriving northern industry, and because slave labor provided the north with (Among other things) cotton for northern textile mills; it should also be noted that the first colony to legalize slavery was Massachusetts.

The legality was very debatable at best, and just curious when did Lincoln acknowledge this? Before you post another link like your link below, may I remind you that you have to do your own research, I am under absolutely no obligation to do your googling for you.

*This and the letters of Lee are in books I do not have on me at present, but I will post back with them soon. I’m sorry if my LMGTFY offended you, but I was pointing out that it was so far from disputed that the first Google page was filled from top to bottom with sources on that subject. Would you prefer I open each search result and post the URLs here next time? To tide you over till I dig up said quotes I’ll provide yiu with the following:

“Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movements.”

– Abraham Lincoln.

starshiptrooper:

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Why was the preservation of black slavery so important?

P.S. You still haven’t answered my question.

 

[Reep]

If this discussion is getting so nutty, ill add my nuts to the bowl:

Ok, the West Coast and North East will form our own country. We will have most of the water, NYC, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle and LA along with Yosemite and Big Sur. we will have the Silicon Valley and Apple and will happily take gay people too. Between them, CA and NY will form the worlds 7th biggest economy. We will have Stanford, Harvard, Yale and Princeton AND Vegas! The other country can happily have all of the racists and gun toting bunch.

Do you see how stupid this all sounds?

Actually, it sounds a litte condescending. As if all of us racist gun-toters here in Missouri would be miserable if we didn’t have the smart people to enlighten and boss us around.